An addition to Trevor Tosspot's Porky List

On Jun 26, 10:16 pm, "Blinky Bill" <nos...@anytime.com> wrote:

That's your usual childish excuse - "But mum, he did it first" - pathetic..
But if you claim you are "playing by his rules", then we can regard you the
same way you regard  him.
Click to expand...
You can regard me anyway you like, I seek neither your "brownie
points", your respect, nor your counsel.

And I will continue to treat you as Trevor Tosspot's foul mouthed sock-
puppet.
 
On Jun 26, 10:25 pm, "Blinky Bill" <nos...@anytime.com> wrote:

Tell us again about how you don't classify people according to their sexual
preference ... but describe them as gay LMAO
Click to expand...
The friends I was refering to in my post describe themselves as "gay"
 
<r_c_brown@hushmail.com> wrote in message
news:eab1e64a-2c17-4f2b-884a-4e0a70fcf673@c18g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
On Jun 25, 11:31 pm, "Trevor Wilson"
<tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote:
r_c_br...@hushmail.com> wrote in message

news:8b79bf11-eac1-4190-9edc-d2c2715cb0b4@t11g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
On Jun 24, 4:13 pm, "Trevor Wilson" <tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au
wrote:



r_c_br...@hushmail.com> wrote in message

news:7765e123-cdf0-465b-89d3-318fb32a2a65@d25g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
On Jun 23, 5:45 pm, "Trevor Wilson" <tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au
wrote:

r_c_br...@hushmail.com> wrote in message

news:a3d498e1-5309-4c6f-a2e9-453c1b60cc13@d38g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
On Jun 22, 9:32 pm, "Trevor Wilson" <tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au
wrote:

"Gray Ghost" <grey_ghost471-newsgro...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

news:Xns9C333361FA65Wereofftoseethewizrd@216.196.97.142...

"Trevor Wilson" <tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in
news:7aanffF1smtq5U1@mid.individual.net:

"Gray Ghost" <grey_ghost471-newsgro...@yahoo.com> wrote in
message
news:Xns9C32B2A694790Wereofftoseethewizrd@216.196.97.142...
"fritz" <fr...@address.com> wrote in
news:h1ora1$djm$00$1@news.t-online.com:

John - Melb <mcnamara_j...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:eaf35a3b-8ec1-45d4-a716-35ac3a1b2fe6@y10g2000prc.googlegroups.com..
.
I note Trevor failed to provide any evidence to support his
assertion
that dealers are posing as private citizens to sell guns to
criminals
at gun shows, without the necessary background checks, despite
being
provided with evidence that this activity is illegal.

Clearly, Trevor has some evidence that this is going on.

I guess this shows exactly the sort of person Trevor is, he
has
evidence of a crime being committed, but fails to report that
criminal
activity to the relevant authorities, despite the threat this
criminal
activity poses to public safety, because the continuance of
this
criminal activity allows Trevor to ride his favourite
political
hobby-
horse on Usenet.

Gun-lover = one who has a truly pathetic personal disorder

Gun hater - a person who has a fear of inanimate objects and
retarded
sexual and emotional maturity and a indicator of Hoplophobia.

**I know of no person who "hates" inanimate objects. Perhaps
you'd
care
to cite some verifiable examples. I won'
t hold my breath.

Clearly you fear them and fear leds to hate.

**Projection. For the record: I have fired guns. I do not fear them.

Hoplophobia (n.): The irrational fear of weapons, correctly
described
by
Freud as "a sign of emotional and sexual immaturity".

**Repeating a lie, does not make it truth. Whilst I'm certain
there
are
some people who do fear weapons, I can't say I've ever met anyone
who
does. OTOH, I know a goodly number of people who do fear a nutter
who
is
holding a gun at them. Perhaps you could cite some people who
fear
weapons. I won't hold my breath.

Nope that's your forte. How;s your buddy that can stop his hjeart
to
take
a
shot?

**Inability to respond rationally, duly noted. SOP. I accept that
you
know
no one who fears guns.

Hoplophobia, like
homophobia, is a displacement symptom; hoplophobes fear their
own
"forbidden" feelings and urges to commit violence.

**Bollocks. This is projection, based on a flawed descriptor.

Constatnly projecting what others they don't know would do and the
raging
threats by antis on this group would seem to prove you wrong.
Again.

**Nope. You cited the flawed descriptor and then went on to project
your
own
opinions, based on that flawed descriptor.

This would be
harmless, except that they project these feelings onto others.
The
sequelae of this neurosis include irrational and dangerous
behaviors
such as passing "gun-control" laws and trashing the
Constitution.

**What is wrong with good, strong, sane gun control laws? Do you
feel
that criminals, drunks, drug addicts and nutters should have
unfettered
access to firearms? Why do you feel that altering the US
Constitution
(which has been done many times in the past) to reflect common
sense,
logic and the progress of technology represents a "trashing of
the
Constitution"?

Trevor I'm not going down this raod with you.

**I'll allow you another opportunity to answer the questions. If you
fail
to
do so, then we will all know, full well, that you are full of shit.
Here
are
the questions:

* What is wrong with good, strong, sane gun control laws?

Nothing. Of course, what constitutes those laws needs to meet
Constitutional standards and general agreement.

**Indeed.

* Do you feel that criminals, drunks, drug addicts and nutters
should
have
unfettered access to firearms?

None of these groups - with a couple of possible exceptions - have
unfettered access to firearms now.

**Untrue. In many US jurisdictions, drug addicts, drunks, nutters AND
criminals are able to purchase second hand guns with ease.

As I mentioned, it depends on the definitions of "criminal" and
"nutter".

**Those definitions are not difficult to quantify.

Good. Please provide your definitions.

I'll go one better:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/criminal
Click to expand...
Okay, I'll assume "a person guilty or convicted of a crime". As
mentioned in an earlier message, ex-felons are generally barred from
firearm ownership, so there is no need for new laws in that case.
Your definition would include misdemeanor offenses, is that correct?

**Depends. Any violent offence should be enough to ensure that a person is
never allowed to own a firearm. However, the problem with US firearms laws
(as they exist in many jurisdictions), is that it is possible to sell a
second hand firearm to a criminal, without the seller first performing a
background check.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/nutter
Click to expand...
Okay, slang for "an insane person". As mentioned in an earlier
message, people who are adjudicated as potentially harmful to
themselves or others due to a psychological disease are already barred
from firearm ownership. Looks like there is no need for new laws here
either.

**See above.


See #2.





Exceptions might include ex-criminals. Ex-felons are generally barred
from firearm ownership, so I'm thinking more of misdemeanor offenses
wherein the person has served their time.

Another exception might be "nutters", since the term is unclear.
People who are adjudicated as potentially harmful to themselves or
others due to a psychological disease - what I am currently assuming
you mean by "nutter" - are already barred from firearm ownership.

* Why do you feel that altering the US Constitution (which has been
done
many times in the past) to reflect common sense, logic and the
progress
of
technology represents a "trashing of the Constitution"?

The Constitution has been amended 27 times. Amendments have been
proposed thousands of times, and failed. The Constitution was set up
to be amendable, but not easily.

What sort of amendment did you have in mind when you asked your
question?

**Read my question again.

Okay, I read it again.

**Then please explain how I can answer your question, in light of mine.

How do you propose to change the Constitution to "reflect common
sense, logic and the progress of technology"?

**That is not for me to say, nor do. I am not a US citizen. Only US
citizens
may propose such actions.

Look at it from another direction: if I think that the Constitution
already does "reflect common sense, logic and the progress of
technology", and apparently you do not, what needs to change?

**Again: That is not for me to say. I am not a US citizen.

Please be specific, as you are fond of writing.

Now please answer my question.

**Re-read my question.

I did; you still haven't answered.

**Again: Re-read my question.
Click to expand...
It is certainly possible to trample individual rights by amending the
Constitution.

**Indeed. It is also possible to alter the Constitution to reflect the
reality of modern society too. The US Constitution was written a few hundred
years ago. Things have changed. Fortunately, the US Constitution was
concieved as a document which could be changed to reflect changes in
society.


The original - and current - purpose of the Constitution is to set up
the framework of the federal government, and to limit that government
to certain powers. Any powers not granted to the federal government
belong to the States. More importantly, rights belong to people, and
are not granted by government. There are several rights enumerated in
the Constitution, with an understanding (and an explicit statement)
that rights not enumerated still belong to the people.

Prohibition is an example of how not to amend the Constitution - it
restricted people's rights, and was rightfully repealed by amendment.
Other examples of potential (so far) amendments that would restrict
rights are the anti flag burning amendment and the anti gay marriage
amendment. These things are violations of the intent of the
Constitution.

If whatever you had in mind when you wrote "altering the US
Constitution (which has been done many times in the past) to reflect
common sense, logic and the progress of technology" - which you still
haven't explained - infringes unduly on individual rights, then that
would be another example of using the amendment process to trample
rights.

Now will you please answer my question?

**I was asking the question about why a (unstated) change to to Constitution
represented a "trashing of the Constitution". I am still waiting for an
answer to that question. If you would care to answer for the other poster,
please feel free. Changes have been made to the US Constitution in the past
and they will most probably be made in the future.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au
 
Trevor Wilson wrote:
r_c_brown@hushmail.com> wrote in message
news:eab1e64a-2c17-4f2b-884a-4e0a70fcf673@c18g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
On Jun 25, 11:31 pm, "Trevor Wilson"
tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote:
r_c_br...@hushmail.com> wrote in message

news:8b79bf11-eac1-4190-9edc-d2c2715cb0b4@t11g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
On Jun 24, 4:13 pm, "Trevor Wilson" <tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au
wrote:



r_c_br...@hushmail.com> wrote in message
news:7765e123-cdf0-465b-89d3-318fb32a2a65@d25g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
On Jun 23, 5:45 pm, "Trevor Wilson" <tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au
wrote:
r_c_br...@hushmail.com> wrote in message
news:a3d498e1-5309-4c6f-a2e9-453c1b60cc13@d38g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
On Jun 22, 9:32 pm, "Trevor Wilson" <tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au
wrote:
"Gray Ghost" <grey_ghost471-newsgro...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9C333361FA65Wereofftoseethewizrd@216.196.97.142...
"Trevor Wilson" <tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in
news:7aanffF1smtq5U1@mid.individual.net:
"Gray Ghost" <grey_ghost471-newsgro...@yahoo.com> wrote in
message
news:Xns9C32B2A694790Wereofftoseethewizrd@216.196.97.142...
"fritz" <fr...@address.com> wrote in
news:h1ora1$djm$00$1@news.t-online.com:
John - Melb <mcnamara_j...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:eaf35a3b-8ec1-45d4-a716-35ac3a1b2fe6@y10g2000prc.googlegroups.com..
.
I note Trevor failed to provide any evidence to support his
assertion
that dealers are posing as private citizens to sell guns to
criminals
at gun shows, without the necessary background checks, despite
being
provided with evidence that this activity is illegal.
Clearly, Trevor has some evidence that this is going on.
I guess this shows exactly the sort of person Trevor is, he
has
evidence of a crime being committed, but fails to report that
criminal
activity to the relevant authorities, despite the threat this
criminal
activity poses to public safety, because the continuance of
this
criminal activity allows Trevor to ride his favourite
political
hobby-
horse on Usenet.
Gun-lover = one who has a truly pathetic personal disorder
Gun hater - a person who has a fear of inanimate objects and
retarded
sexual and emotional maturity and a indicator of Hoplophobia.
**I know of no person who "hates" inanimate objects. Perhaps
you'd
care
to cite some verifiable examples. I won'
t hold my breath.
Clearly you fear them and fear leds to hate.
**Projection. For the record: I have fired guns. I do not fear them.
Hoplophobia (n.): The irrational fear of weapons, correctly
described
by
Freud as "a sign of emotional and sexual immaturity".
**Repeating a lie, does not make it truth. Whilst I'm certain
there
are
some people who do fear weapons, I can't say I've ever met anyone
who
does. OTOH, I know a goodly number of people who do fear a nutter
who
is
holding a gun at them. Perhaps you could cite some people who
fear
weapons. I won't hold my breath.
Nope that's your forte. How;s your buddy that can stop his hjeart
to
take
a
shot?
**Inability to respond rationally, duly noted. SOP. I accept that
you
know
no one who fears guns.
Hoplophobia, like
homophobia, is a displacement symptom; hoplophobes fear their
own
"forbidden" feelings and urges to commit violence.
**Bollocks. This is projection, based on a flawed descriptor.
Constatnly projecting what others they don't know would do and the
raging
threats by antis on this group would seem to prove you wrong.
Again.
**Nope. You cited the flawed descriptor and then went on to project
your
own
opinions, based on that flawed descriptor.
This would be
harmless, except that they project these feelings onto others.
The
sequelae of this neurosis include irrational and dangerous
behaviors
such as passing "gun-control" laws and trashing the
Constitution.
**What is wrong with good, strong, sane gun control laws? Do you
feel
that criminals, drunks, drug addicts and nutters should have
unfettered
access to firearms? Why do you feel that altering the US
Constitution
(which has been done many times in the past) to reflect common
sense,
logic and the progress of technology represents a "trashing of
the
Constitution"?
Trevor I'm not going down this raod with you.
**I'll allow you another opportunity to answer the questions. If you
fail
to
do so, then we will all know, full well, that you are full of shit.
Here
are
the questions:
* What is wrong with good, strong, sane gun control laws?
Nothing. Of course, what constitutes those laws needs to meet
Constitutional standards and general agreement.
**Indeed.
* Do you feel that criminals, drunks, drug addicts and nutters
should
have
unfettered access to firearms?
None of these groups - with a couple of possible exceptions - have
unfettered access to firearms now.
**Untrue. In many US jurisdictions, drug addicts, drunks, nutters AND
criminals are able to purchase second hand guns with ease.
As I mentioned, it depends on the definitions of "criminal" and
"nutter".
**Those definitions are not difficult to quantify.
Good. Please provide your definitions.

I'll go one better:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/criminal

Okay, I'll assume "a person guilty or convicted of a crime". As
mentioned in an earlier message, ex-felons are generally barred from
firearm ownership, so there is no need for new laws in that case.
Your definition would include misdemeanor offenses, is that correct?

**Depends. Any violent offence should be enough to ensure that a person is
never allowed to own a firearm.
Click to expand...
Really? So when you are 18 you get into a fight at school. Trevor would
have us believe that person should never be able to own a gun. Maybe
when they were 20 they pushed someone, Trevor would have us deny them
the right to own arms.

Sorry Trevor, but if the offense is serious enough to result in lifetime
infringement of their rights, then it needs to be a felony. Otherwise,
blow it out your ass.

However, the problem with US firearms laws
(as they exist in many jurisdictions), is that it is possible to sell a
second hand firearm to a criminal, without the seller first performing a
background check.
Click to expand...
Yes it is, and oddly enough there is absolutely no evidence to show that
in those jurisdictions that mandate such a check see any decrease in
the rate of violent crime, the rate of violent crimes committed with a
firearm, or the rate the criminals are caught with guns. So what purpose
does this serve?

Further if you really want to conduct a background check there is a far
simplier method than having to enter information into a computer
database. Simple make the ID issued indicate whether the person is
allowed to buy guns.

Then the seller can easily and readily conduct a background check at any
time or place, without delay or need to wait for governmental permission
to be issued.

Oh, but that's right, you don't like that idea because it wouldn't allow
the government to be able to make a database of all legal firearms
transactions.


http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/nutter


Okay, slang for "an insane person". As mentioned in an earlier
message, people who are adjudicated as potentially harmful to
themselves or others due to a psychological disease are already barred
from firearm ownership. Looks like there is no need for new laws here
either.

**See above.
Click to expand...

Nothing above applies.

See #2.





Exceptions might include ex-criminals. Ex-felons are generally barred
from firearm ownership, so I'm thinking more of misdemeanor offenses
wherein the person has served their time.
Another exception might be "nutters", since the term is unclear.
People who are adjudicated as potentially harmful to themselves or
others due to a psychological disease - what I am currently assuming
you mean by "nutter" - are already barred from firearm ownership.
* Why do you feel that altering the US Constitution (which has been
done
many times in the past) to reflect common sense, logic and the
progress
of
technology represents a "trashing of the Constitution"?
The Constitution has been amended 27 times. Amendments have been
proposed thousands of times, and failed. The Constitution was set up
to be amendable, but not easily.
What sort of amendment did you have in mind when you asked your
question?
**Read my question again.
Okay, I read it again.
**Then please explain how I can answer your question, in light of mine.
How do you propose to change the Constitution to "reflect common
sense, logic and the progress of technology"?

**That is not for me to say, nor do. I am not a US citizen. Only US
citizens
may propose such actions.

Look at it from another direction: if I think that the Constitution
already does "reflect common sense, logic and the progress of
technology", and apparently you do not, what needs to change?

**Again: That is not for me to say. I am not a US citizen.

Please be specific, as you are fond of writing.

Now please answer my question.
**Re-read my question.
I did; you still haven't answered.

**Again: Re-read my question.

It is certainly possible to trample individual rights by amending the
Constitution.

**Indeed. It is also possible to alter the Constitution to reflect the
reality of modern society too. The US Constitution was written a few hundred
years ago. Things have changed. Fortunately, the US Constitution was
concieved as a document which could be changed to reflect changes in
society.
Click to expand...
Sure, but until i


The original - and current - purpose of the Constitution is to set up
the framework of the federal government, and to limit that government
to certain powers. Any powers not granted to the federal government
belong to the States. More importantly, rights belong to people, and
are not granted by government. There are several rights enumerated in
the Constitution, with an understanding (and an explicit statement)
that rights not enumerated still belong to the people.

Prohibition is an example of how not to amend the Constitution - it
restricted people's rights, and was rightfully repealed by amendment.
Other examples of potential (so far) amendments that would restrict
rights are the anti flag burning amendment and the anti gay marriage
amendment. These things are violations of the intent of the
Constitution.

If whatever you had in mind when you wrote "altering the US
Constitution (which has been done many times in the past) to reflect
common sense, logic and the progress of technology" - which you still
haven't explained - infringes unduly on individual rights, then that
would be another example of using the amendment process to trample
rights.

Now will you please answer my question?

**I was asking the question about why a (unstated) change to to Constitution
represented a "trashing of the Constitution". I am still waiting for an
answer to that question. If you would care to answer for the other poster,
please feel free. Changes have been made to the US Constitution in the past
and they will most probably be made in the future.
Click to expand...
Because we already know what change you want to make and it would
violate one of the most basic rights people have.
 
On Jun 25, 11:31 pm, "Trevor Wilson"
<tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote:
r_c_br...@hushmail.com> wrote in message

news:8b79bf11-eac1-4190-9edc-d2c2715cb0b4@t11g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
On Jun 24, 4:13 pm, "Trevor Wilson" <tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au
wrote:



r_c_br...@hushmail.com> wrote in message

news:7765e123-cdf0-465b-89d3-318fb32a2a65@d25g2000prn.googlegroups.com....
On Jun 23, 5:45 pm, "Trevor Wilson" <tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au
wrote:

r_c_br...@hushmail.com> wrote in message

news:a3d498e1-5309-4c6f-a2e9-453c1b60cc13@d38g2000prn.googlegroups.com....
On Jun 22, 9:32 pm, "Trevor Wilson" <tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au
wrote:

"Gray Ghost" <grey_ghost471-newsgro...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

news:Xns9C333361FA65Wereofftoseethewizrd@216.196.97.142...

"Trevor Wilson" <tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in
news:7aanffF1smtq5U1@mid.individual.net:

"Gray Ghost" <grey_ghost471-newsgro...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9C32B2A694790Wereofftoseethewizrd@216.196.97.142...
"fritz" <fr...@address.com> wrote in
news:h1ora1$djm$00$1@news.t-online.com:

John - Melb <mcnamara_j...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:eaf35a3b-8ec1-45d4-a716-35ac3a1b2fe6@y10g2000prc.googlegroups.com..
.
I note Trevor failed to provide any evidence to support his
assertion
that dealers are posing as private citizens to sell guns to
criminals
at gun shows, without the necessary background checks, despite
being
provided with evidence that this activity is illegal.

Clearly, Trevor has some evidence that this is going on.

I guess this shows exactly the sort of person Trevor is, he has
evidence of a crime being committed, but fails to report that
criminal
activity to the relevant authorities, despite the threat this
criminal
activity poses to public safety, because the continuance of this
criminal activity allows Trevor to ride his favourite political
hobby-
horse on Usenet.

Gun-lover = one who has a truly pathetic personal disorder

Gun hater - a person who has a fear of inanimate objects and
retarded
sexual and emotional maturity and a indicator of Hoplophobia.

**I know of no person who "hates" inanimate objects. Perhaps you'd
care
to cite some verifiable examples. I won'
t hold my breath.

Clearly you fear them and fear leds to hate.

**Projection. For the record: I have fired guns. I do not fear them..

Hoplophobia (n.): The irrational fear of weapons, correctly
described
by
Freud as "a sign of emotional and sexual immaturity".

**Repeating a lie, does not make it truth. Whilst I'm certain there
are
some people who do fear weapons, I can't say I've ever met anyone
who
does. OTOH, I know a goodly number of people who do fear a nutter
who
is
holding a gun at them. Perhaps you could cite some people who fear
weapons. I won't hold my breath.

Nope that's your forte. How;s your buddy that can stop his hjeart to
take
a
shot?

**Inability to respond rationally, duly noted. SOP. I accept that you
know
no one who fears guns.

Hoplophobia, like
homophobia, is a displacement symptom; hoplophobes fear their own
"forbidden" feelings and urges to commit violence.

**Bollocks. This is projection, based on a flawed descriptor.

Constatnly projecting what others they don't know would do and the
raging
threats by antis on this group would seem to prove you wrong. Again.

**Nope. You cited the flawed descriptor and then went on to project
your
own
opinions, based on that flawed descriptor.

This would be
harmless, except that they project these feelings onto others. The
sequelae of this neurosis include irrational and dangerous
behaviors
such as passing "gun-control" laws and trashing the Constitution.

**What is wrong with good, strong, sane gun control laws? Do you
feel
that criminals, drunks, drug addicts and nutters should have
unfettered
access to firearms? Why do you feel that altering the US
Constitution
(which has been done many times in the past) to reflect common
sense,
logic and the progress of technology represents a "trashing of the
Constitution"?

Trevor I'm not going down this raod with you.

**I'll allow you another opportunity to answer the questions. If you
fail
to
do so, then we will all know, full well, that you are full of shit.
Here
are
the questions:

* What is wrong with good, strong, sane gun control laws?

Nothing. Of course, what constitutes those laws needs to meet
Constitutional standards and general agreement.

**Indeed.

* Do you feel that criminals, drunks, drug addicts and nutters should
have
unfettered access to firearms?

None of these groups - with a couple of possible exceptions - have
unfettered access to firearms now.

**Untrue. In many US jurisdictions, drug addicts, drunks, nutters AND
criminals are able to purchase second hand guns with ease.

As I mentioned, it depends on the definitions of "criminal" and
"nutter".

**Those definitions are not difficult to quantify.

Good.  Please provide your definitions.

I'll go one better:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/criminal
Click to expand...
Okay, I'll assume "a person guilty or convicted of a crime". As
mentioned in an earlier message, ex-felons are generally barred from
firearm ownership, so there is no need for new laws in that case.
Your definition would include misdemeanor offenses, is that correct?

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/nutter
Click to expand...
Okay, slang for "an insane person". As mentioned in an earlier
message, people who are adjudicated as potentially harmful to
themselves or others due to a psychological disease are already barred
from firearm ownership. Looks like there is no need for new laws here
either.

See #2.





Exceptions might include ex-criminals. Ex-felons are generally barred
from firearm ownership, so I'm thinking more of misdemeanor offenses
wherein the person has served their time.

Another exception might be "nutters", since the term is unclear.
People who are adjudicated as potentially harmful to themselves or
others due to a psychological disease - what I am currently assuming
you mean by "nutter" - are already barred from firearm ownership.

* Why do you feel that altering the US Constitution (which has been
done
many times in the past) to reflect common sense, logic and the
progress
of
technology represents a "trashing of the Constitution"?

The Constitution has been amended 27 times. Amendments have been
proposed thousands of times, and failed. The Constitution was set up
to be amendable, but not easily.

What sort of amendment did you have in mind when you asked your
question?

**Read my question again.

Okay, I read it again.

**Then please explain how I can answer your question, in light of mine.

How do you propose to change the Constitution to "reflect common
sense, logic and the progress of technology"?

**That is not for me to say, nor do. I am not a US citizen. Only US citizens
may propose such actions.

Look at it from another direction:  if I think that the Constitution
already does "reflect common sense, logic and the progress of
technology", and apparently you do not, what needs to change?

**Again: That is not for me to say. I am not a US citizen.

Please be specific, as you are fond of writing.

Now please answer my question.

**Re-read my question.

I did; you still haven't answered.

**Again: Re-read my question.
Click to expand...
It is certainly possible to trample individual rights by amending the
Constitution.

The original - and current - purpose of the Constitution is to set up
the framework of the federal government, and to limit that government
to certain powers. Any powers not granted to the federal government
belong to the States. More importantly, rights belong to people, and
are not granted by government. There are several rights enumerated in
the Constitution, with an understanding (and an explicit statement)
that rights not enumerated still belong to the people.

Prohibition is an example of how not to amend the Constitution - it
restricted people's rights, and was rightfully repealed by amendment.
Other examples of potential (so far) amendments that would restrict
rights are the anti flag burning amendment and the anti gay marriage
amendment. These things are violations of the intent of the
Constitution.

If whatever you had in mind when you wrote "altering the US
Constitution (which has been done many times in the past) to reflect
common sense, logic and the progress of technology" - which you still
haven't explained - infringes unduly on individual rights, then that
would be another example of using the amendment process to trample
rights.

Now will you please answer my question?

--
Trevor Wilsonwww.rageaudio.com.au
Click to expand...
 
"John - Melb" <mcnamara_john@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:485688f9-cc40-41a3-9814-ce2b32c15980@a5g2000pre.googlegroups.com...
On Jun 26, 10:16 pm, "Blinky Bill" <nos...@anytime.com> wrote:

That's your usual childish excuse - "But mum, he did it first" - pathetic.
And if you claim you are "playing by his rules", then we can regard you
the
same way you regard him.
Click to expand...
You can regard me anyway you like,
===============================================
I don't need your permission to regard you as a dumb as dog-shit gun-loon,
piggy-shitcan.


I seek neither your "brownie
points", your respect, nor your counsel.
================================================
Then why do you try to explain or justify your behaviour - you are as
irrational as always. But you can relax - I can't imagine the circumstances
in which I would give you either respect or counsel and you lack the
intelligence to earn "brownie points" . You do nothing worthy of respect and
your are too stupid too heed wise counsel LMAO.


And I will continue to treat you as Trevor Tosspot's foul mouthed sock-
puppet.
================================================
Tell someone who cares. And I will continue to treat you to regular
spankings piggy. You must be used to them by now LMAO
 
"John - Melb" <mcnamara_john@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:78363a71-66d0-4d25-aed1-10dc0a1888b2@g15g2000pra.googlegroups.com...
On Jun 26, 10:25 pm, "Blinky Bill" <nos...@anytime.com> wrote:

Tell us again about how you don't classify people according to their
sexual
preference ... but describe them as gay LMAO
Click to expand...
The friends I was refering to in my post describe themselves as "gay"
====================================================
So? You are classifying them according to their sexual preference when you
use the term. It's your use of the term to classify them being discussed,
not theirs.
 
"Gray Ghost" <grey_ghost471-newsgroups@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9C366526EABAEWereofftoseethewizrd@216.196.97.142...
John - Melb <mcnamara_john@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:78363a71-66d0-4d25-aed1-10dc0a1888b2@g15g2000pra.googlegroups.com:

On Jun 26, 10:25 pm, "Blinky Bill" <nos...@anytime.com> wrote:

Tell us again about how you don't classify people according to their
sexual preference ... but describe them as gay LMAO

The friends I was refering to in my post describe themselves as "gay"


It is my impression that "gay" is considered the acceptable term when
referring to those who prefer thier own gender.
Click to expand...
I can't see how that changes its meaning from classifying people according
to their sexual orientation. But keep wriggling.


Blinky Bill is an empty sock, smelly, dirty, crusty with holes in the
wrong
places. He is a near perfect example of the idiot contrarian on this
newsgroup. Stupid, vulgar, worthless.
Click to expand...
I am dismayed that you think of me that way - I don't think I will sleep for
a fortnight <yawn>.
I notice you usually slink away from my posts and only make feeble attempts
to address them in this indirect fashion. I suppose you have no choice after
the numerous times I have high-lighted your stupidity LMAO



--
Always remember:

Bull Connor was a Democrat!
Click to expand...
 
<r_c_brown@hushmail.com> wrote in message
news:8531e48b-0390-4790-a147-2293aff694e5@v23g2000pro.googlegroups.com...
On Jun 26, 1:03 pm, "Trevor Wilson" <tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au>
wrote:
r_c_br...@hushmail.com> wrote in message

news:eab1e64a-2c17-4f2b-884a-4e0a70fcf673@c18g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
On Jun 25, 11:31 pm, "Trevor Wilson"

tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote:
r_c_br...@hushmail.com> wrote in message

news:8b79bf11-eac1-4190-9edc-d2c2715cb0b4@t11g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
On Jun 24, 4:13 pm, "Trevor Wilson" <tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au
wrote:

r_c_br...@hushmail.com> wrote in message

news:7765e123-cdf0-465b-89d3-318fb32a2a65@d25g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
On Jun 23, 5:45 pm, "Trevor Wilson" <tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au
wrote:

r_c_br...@hushmail.com> wrote in message

news:a3d498e1-5309-4c6f-a2e9-453c1b60cc13@d38g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
On Jun 22, 9:32 pm, "Trevor Wilson"
tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au
wrote:

"Gray Ghost" <grey_ghost471-newsgro...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

news:Xns9C333361FA65Wereofftoseethewizrd@216.196.97.142...

"Trevor Wilson" <tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in
news:7aanffF1smtq5U1@mid.individual.net:

"Gray Ghost" <grey_ghost471-newsgro...@yahoo.com> wrote in
message
news:Xns9C32B2A694790Wereofftoseethewizrd@216.196.97.142...
"fritz" <fr...@address.com> wrote in
news:h1ora1$djm$00$1@news.t-online.com:

John - Melb <mcnamara_j...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:eaf35a3b-8ec1-45d4-a716-35ac3a1b2fe6@y10g2000prc.googlegroups.com..
.
I note Trevor failed to provide any evidence to support his
assertion
that dealers are posing as private citizens to sell guns to
criminals
at gun shows, without the necessary background checks,
despite
being
provided with evidence that this activity is illegal.

Clearly, Trevor has some evidence that this is going on.

I guess this shows exactly the sort of person Trevor is, he
has
evidence of a crime being committed, but fails to report
that
criminal
activity to the relevant authorities, despite the threat
this
criminal
activity poses to public safety, because the continuance of
this
criminal activity allows Trevor to ride his favourite
political
hobby-
horse on Usenet.

Gun-lover = one who has a truly pathetic personal disorder

Gun hater - a person who has a fear of inanimate objects and
retarded
sexual and emotional maturity and a indicator of Hoplophobia.

**I know of no person who "hates" inanimate objects. Perhaps
you'd
care
to cite some verifiable examples. I won'
t hold my breath.

Clearly you fear them and fear leds to hate.

**Projection. For the record: I have fired guns. I do not fear
them.

Hoplophobia (n.): The irrational fear of weapons, correctly
described
by
Freud as "a sign of emotional and sexual immaturity".

**Repeating a lie, does not make it truth. Whilst I'm certain
there
are
some people who do fear weapons, I can't say I've ever met
anyone
who
does. OTOH, I know a goodly number of people who do fear a
nutter
who
is
holding a gun at them. Perhaps you could cite some people who
fear
weapons. I won't hold my breath.

Nope that's your forte. How;s your buddy that can stop his
hjeart
to
take
a
shot?

**Inability to respond rationally, duly noted. SOP. I accept that
you
know
no one who fears guns.

Hoplophobia, like
homophobia, is a displacement symptom; hoplophobes fear their
own
"forbidden" feelings and urges to commit violence.

**Bollocks. This is projection, based on a flawed descriptor.

Constatnly projecting what others they don't know would do and
the
raging
threats by antis on this group would seem to prove you wrong.
Again.

**Nope. You cited the flawed descriptor and then went on to
project
your
own
opinions, based on that flawed descriptor.

This would be
harmless, except that they project these feelings onto others.
The
sequelae of this neurosis include irrational and dangerous
behaviors
such as passing "gun-control" laws and trashing the
Constitution.

**What is wrong with good, strong, sane gun control laws? Do
you
feel
that criminals, drunks, drug addicts and nutters should have
unfettered
access to firearms? Why do you feel that altering the US
Constitution
(which has been done many times in the past) to reflect common
sense,
logic and the progress of technology represents a "trashing of
the
Constitution"?

Trevor I'm not going down this raod with you.

**I'll allow you another opportunity to answer the questions. If
you
fail
to
do so, then we will all know, full well, that you are full of
shit.
Here
are
the questions:

* What is wrong with good, strong, sane gun control laws?

Nothing. Of course, what constitutes those laws needs to meet
Constitutional standards and general agreement.

**Indeed.

* Do you feel that criminals, drunks, drug addicts and nutters
should
have
unfettered access to firearms?

None of these groups - with a couple of possible exceptions - have
unfettered access to firearms now.

**Untrue. In many US jurisdictions, drug addicts, drunks, nutters
AND
criminals are able to purchase second hand guns with ease.

As I mentioned, it depends on the definitions of "criminal" and
"nutter".

**Those definitions are not difficult to quantify.

Good. Please provide your definitions.

I'll go one better:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/criminal

Okay, I'll assume "a person guilty or convicted of a crime". As
mentioned in an earlier message, ex-felons are generally barred from
firearm ownership, so there is no need for new laws in that case.
Your definition would include misdemeanor offenses, is that correct?

**Depends. Any violent offence should be enough to ensure that a person is
never allowed to own a firearm. However, the problem with US firearms laws
(as they exist in many jurisdictions), is that it is possible to sell a
second hand firearm to a criminal, without the seller first performing a
background check.
Click to expand...
Are you referring to sales between private parties?

**Yep.

For example, if I
owned any firearms, I could sell one to a friend or relative without
the background check, right?

**Depending on the jurisdiction, yes.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/nutter

Okay, slang for "an insane person". As mentioned in an earlier
message, people who are adjudicated as potentially harmful to
themselves or others due to a psychological disease are already barred
from firearm ownership. Looks like there is no need for new laws here
either.

**See above.
Click to expand...
See above.

See #2.

Exceptions might include ex-criminals. Ex-felons are generally
barred
from firearm ownership, so I'm thinking more of misdemeanor offenses
wherein the person has served their time.

Another exception might be "nutters", since the term is unclear.
People who are adjudicated as potentially harmful to themselves or
others due to a psychological disease - what I am currently assuming
you mean by "nutter" - are already barred from firearm ownership.

* Why do you feel that altering the US Constitution (which has
been
done
many times in the past) to reflect common sense, logic and the
progress
of
technology represents a "trashing of the Constitution"?

The Constitution has been amended 27 times. Amendments have been
proposed thousands of times, and failed. The Constitution was set up
to be amendable, but not easily.

What sort of amendment did you have in mind when you asked your
question?

**Read my question again.

Okay, I read it again.

**Then please explain how I can answer your question, in light of
mine.

How do you propose to change the Constitution to "reflect common
sense, logic and the progress of technology"?

**That is not for me to say, nor do. I am not a US citizen. Only US
citizens
may propose such actions.

Look at it from another direction: if I think that the Constitution
already does "reflect common sense, logic and the progress of
technology", and apparently you do not, what needs to change?

**Again: That is not for me to say. I am not a US citizen.

Please be specific, as you are fond of writing.

Now please answer my question.

**Re-read my question.

I did; you still haven't answered.

**Again: Re-read my question.

It is certainly possible to trample individual rights by amending the
Constitution.

**Indeed. It is also possible to alter the Constitution to reflect the
reality of modern society too. The US Constitution was written a few
hundred
years ago. Things have changed. Fortunately, the US Constitution was
concieved as a document which could be changed to reflect changes in
society.

The original - and current - purpose of the Constitution is to set up
the framework of the federal government, and to limit that government
to certain powers. Any powers not granted to the federal government
belong to the States. More importantly, rights belong to people, and
are not granted by government. There are several rights enumerated in
the Constitution, with an understanding (and an explicit statement)
that rights not enumerated still belong to the people.

Prohibition is an example of how not to amend the Constitution - it
restricted people's rights, and was rightfully repealed by amendment.
Other examples of potential (so far) amendments that would restrict
rights are the anti flag burning amendment and the anti gay marriage
amendment. These things are violations of the intent of the
Constitution.

If whatever you had in mind when you wrote "altering the US
Constitution (which has been done many times in the past) to reflect
common sense, logic and the progress of technology" - which you still
haven't explained - infringes unduly on individual rights, then that
would be another example of using the amendment process to trample
rights.

Now will you please answer my question?

**I was asking the question about why a (unstated) change to to
Constitution
represented a "trashing of the Constitution". I am still waiting for an
answer to that question. If you would care to answer for the other poster,
please feel free. Changes have been made to the US Constitution in the
past
and they will most probably be made in the future.
Click to expand...
I just answered your question in detail above. If there is something
about the answer that is unclear, please let me know.

**Certainly. NO response has been made to my question about "trashing the
Constitution". ALTERING the Constitution has been done many times and will
likely be done again.


Now will you please answer my question?


**Already done. See above.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au
 
On Jun 26, 1:03 pm, "Trevor Wilson" <tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au>
wrote:
r_c_br...@hushmail.com> wrote in message

news:eab1e64a-2c17-4f2b-884a-4e0a70fcf673@c18g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
On Jun 25, 11:31 pm, "Trevor Wilson"

tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote:
r_c_br...@hushmail.com> wrote in message

news:8b79bf11-eac1-4190-9edc-d2c2715cb0b4@t11g2000prh.googlegroups.com....
On Jun 24, 4:13 pm, "Trevor Wilson" <tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au
wrote:

r_c_br...@hushmail.com> wrote in message

news:7765e123-cdf0-465b-89d3-318fb32a2a65@d25g2000prn.googlegroups.com....
On Jun 23, 5:45 pm, "Trevor Wilson" <tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au
wrote:

r_c_br...@hushmail.com> wrote in message

news:a3d498e1-5309-4c6f-a2e9-453c1b60cc13@d38g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
On Jun 22, 9:32 pm, "Trevor Wilson" <tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au
wrote:

"Gray Ghost" <grey_ghost471-newsgro...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

news:Xns9C333361FA65Wereofftoseethewizrd@216.196.97.142...

"Trevor Wilson" <tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in
news:7aanffF1smtq5U1@mid.individual.net:

"Gray Ghost" <grey_ghost471-newsgro...@yahoo.com> wrote in
message
news:Xns9C32B2A694790Wereofftoseethewizrd@216.196.97.142...
"fritz" <fr...@address.com> wrote in
news:h1ora1$djm$00$1@news.t-online.com:

John - Melb <mcnamara_j...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:eaf35a3b-8ec1-45d4-a716-35ac3a1b2fe6@y10g2000prc.googlegroups.com..
.
I note Trevor failed to provide any evidence to support his
assertion
that dealers are posing as private citizens to sell guns to
criminals
at gun shows, without the necessary background checks, despite
being
provided with evidence that this activity is illegal.

Clearly, Trevor has some evidence that this is going on.

I guess this shows exactly the sort of person Trevor is, he
has
evidence of a crime being committed, but fails to report that
criminal
activity to the relevant authorities, despite the threat this
criminal
activity poses to public safety, because the continuance of
this
criminal activity allows Trevor to ride his favourite
political
hobby-
horse on Usenet.

Gun-lover = one who has a truly pathetic personal disorder

Gun hater - a person who has a fear of inanimate objects and
retarded
sexual and emotional maturity and a indicator of Hoplophobia.

**I know of no person who "hates" inanimate objects. Perhaps
you'd
care
to cite some verifiable examples. I won'
t hold my breath.

Clearly you fear them and fear leds to hate.

**Projection. For the record: I have fired guns. I do not fear them.

Hoplophobia (n.): The irrational fear of weapons, correctly
described
by
Freud as "a sign of emotional and sexual immaturity".

**Repeating a lie, does not make it truth. Whilst I'm certain
there
are
some people who do fear weapons, I can't say I've ever met anyone
who
does. OTOH, I know a goodly number of people who do fear a nutter
who
is
holding a gun at them. Perhaps you could cite some people who
fear
weapons. I won't hold my breath.

Nope that's your forte. How;s your buddy that can stop his hjeart
to
take
a
shot?

**Inability to respond rationally, duly noted. SOP. I accept that
you
know
no one who fears guns.

Hoplophobia, like
homophobia, is a displacement symptom; hoplophobes fear their
own
"forbidden" feelings and urges to commit violence.

**Bollocks. This is projection, based on a flawed descriptor.

Constatnly projecting what others they don't know would do and the
raging
threats by antis on this group would seem to prove you wrong.
Again.

**Nope. You cited the flawed descriptor and then went on to project
your
own
opinions, based on that flawed descriptor.

This would be
harmless, except that they project these feelings onto others..
The
sequelae of this neurosis include irrational and dangerous
behaviors
such as passing "gun-control" laws and trashing the
Constitution.

**What is wrong with good, strong, sane gun control laws? Do you
feel
that criminals, drunks, drug addicts and nutters should have
unfettered
access to firearms? Why do you feel that altering the US
Constitution
(which has been done many times in the past) to reflect common
sense,
logic and the progress of technology represents a "trashing of
the
Constitution"?

Trevor I'm not going down this raod with you.

**I'll allow you another opportunity to answer the questions. If you
fail
to
do so, then we will all know, full well, that you are full of shit.
Here
are
the questions:

* What is wrong with good, strong, sane gun control laws?

Nothing. Of course, what constitutes those laws needs to meet
Constitutional standards and general agreement.

**Indeed.

* Do you feel that criminals, drunks, drug addicts and nutters
should
have
unfettered access to firearms?

None of these groups - with a couple of possible exceptions - have
unfettered access to firearms now.

**Untrue. In many US jurisdictions, drug addicts, drunks, nutters AND
criminals are able to purchase second hand guns with ease.

As I mentioned, it depends on the definitions of "criminal" and
"nutter".

**Those definitions are not difficult to quantify.

Good. Please provide your definitions.

I'll go one better:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/criminal

Okay, I'll assume "a person guilty or convicted of a crime".  As
mentioned in an earlier message, ex-felons are generally barred from
firearm ownership, so there is no need for new laws in that case.
Your definition would include misdemeanor offenses, is that correct?

**Depends. Any violent offence should be enough to ensure that a person is
never allowed to own a firearm. However, the problem with US firearms laws
(as they exist in many jurisdictions), is that it is possible to sell a
second hand firearm to a criminal, without the seller first performing a
background check.
Click to expand...
Are you referring to sales between private parties? For example, if I
owned any firearms, I could sell one to a friend or relative without
the background check, right?

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/nutter

Okay, slang for "an insane person".  As mentioned in an earlier
message, people who are adjudicated as potentially harmful to
themselves or others due to a psychological disease are already barred
from firearm ownership.  Looks like there is no need for new laws here
either.

**See above.
Click to expand...
See above.

See #2.

Exceptions might include ex-criminals. Ex-felons are generally barred
from firearm ownership, so I'm thinking more of misdemeanor offenses
wherein the person has served their time.

Another exception might be "nutters", since the term is unclear.
People who are adjudicated as potentially harmful to themselves or
others due to a psychological disease - what I am currently assuming
you mean by "nutter" - are already barred from firearm ownership.

* Why do you feel that altering the US Constitution (which has been
done
many times in the past) to reflect common sense, logic and the
progress
of
technology represents a "trashing of the Constitution"?

The Constitution has been amended 27 times. Amendments have been
proposed thousands of times, and failed. The Constitution was set up
to be amendable, but not easily.

What sort of amendment did you have in mind when you asked your
question?

**Read my question again.

Okay, I read it again.

**Then please explain how I can answer your question, in light of mine.

How do you propose to change the Constitution to "reflect common
sense, logic and the progress of technology"?

**That is not for me to say, nor do. I am not a US citizen. Only US
citizens
may propose such actions.

Look at it from another direction: if I think that the Constitution
already does "reflect common sense, logic and the progress of
technology", and apparently you do not, what needs to change?

**Again: That is not for me to say. I am not a US citizen.

Please be specific, as you are fond of writing.

Now please answer my question.

**Re-read my question.

I did; you still haven't answered.

**Again: Re-read my question.

It is certainly possible to trample individual rights by amending the
Constitution.

**Indeed. It is also possible to alter the Constitution to reflect the
reality of modern society too. The US Constitution was written a few hundred
years ago. Things have changed. Fortunately, the US Constitution was
concieved as a document which could be changed to reflect changes in
society.

The original - and current - purpose of the Constitution is to set up
the framework of the federal government, and to limit that government
to certain powers.  Any powers not granted to the federal government
belong to the States.  More importantly, rights belong to people, and
are not granted by government.  There are several rights enumerated in
the Constitution, with an understanding (and an explicit statement)
that rights not enumerated still belong to the people.

Prohibition is an example of how not to amend the Constitution - it
restricted people's rights, and was rightfully repealed by amendment.
Other examples of potential (so far) amendments that would restrict
rights are the anti flag burning amendment and the anti gay marriage
amendment.  These things are violations of the intent of the
Constitution.

If whatever you had in mind when you wrote "altering the US
Constitution (which has been done many times in the past) to reflect
common sense, logic and the progress of technology" - which you still
haven't explained - infringes unduly on individual rights, then that
would be another example of using the amendment process to trample
rights.

Now will you please answer my question?

**I was asking the question about why a (unstated) change to to Constitution
represented a "trashing of the Constitution". I am still waiting for an
answer to that question. If you would care to answer for the other poster,
please feel free. Changes have been made to the US Constitution in the past
and they will most probably be made in the future.
Click to expand...
I just answered your question in detail above. If there is something
about the answer that is unclear, please let me know.

Now will you please answer my question?

--
Trevor Wilsonwww.rageaudio.com.au
Click to expand...
 
On Jun 27, 9:43 am, "Trevor Wilson" <tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au>
wrote:
r_c_br...@hushmail.com> wrote in message

news:8531e48b-0390-4790-a147-2293aff694e5@v23g2000pro.googlegroups.com...
On Jun 26, 1:03 pm, "Trevor Wilson" <tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au
wrote:





r_c_br...@hushmail.com> wrote in message
Click to expand...

**Depends. Any violent offence should be enough to ensure that a person is
never allowed to own a firearm. However, the problem with US firearms laws
(as they exist in many jurisdictions), is that it is possible to sell a
second hand firearm to a criminal, without the seller first performing a
background check.

Are you referring to sales between private parties?

**Yep.

  For example, if I
owned any firearms, I could sell one to a friend or relative without
the background check, right?

**Depending on the jurisdiction, yes.
Click to expand...
Fascinating, Trevor claims here that he is refering to sales between
private
individuals, yet on aus.electronics he claimed he was refering to
dealers
posing as private sellers to sell guns to criminals at gun shows.

--------------------------------------------------
On Jun 18, 6:17 pm, John - Melb <mcnamara_j...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Jun 18, 12:54 pm, "Trevor Wilson"

tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote:
**Yes. Easily. Across the US, each year, there are hundreds of 'gun shows'.
At these 'gun shows' dealers, posing as private citizens sell thousands of
guns to criminals. They can do so, because there are virtually zero
restrictions on the sale of 'second hand' guns. Even if that gun has only
been 'second hand' for a couple of minutes and has never been fired. Here in
Australia (and pretty much the rest of the developed world) ALL gun sales
must be recorded and tracked. Even secondary sales. Such an action ensures
that fewer guns end up in the hands of criminals.

So, Trevor, are you now claiming that laws governing the sale of
firearms by licenced dealers in the US "don't apply" if the dealer
takes his wares to a gun show?

You are a fucking liar, the laws governing issues like background
checks and 4473 forms apply to gun dealers in the US REGARDLESS of
where they conduct the business.
Click to expand...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Of course, that's standard operating procedure for Trevor Tosspot,
when he gets spanked for telling lies about guns and gun owners, he
runs off to a toally unrelated
forum and posts rants there, believeing no one will know enough about
the subject to challenge his assertions.
 
On Jun 26, 4:43 pm, "Trevor Wilson" <tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au>
wrote:
r_c_br...@hushmail.com> wrote in message

news:8531e48b-0390-4790-a147-2293aff694e5@v23g2000pro.googlegroups.com...
On Jun 26, 1:03 pm, "Trevor Wilson" <tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au
wrote:

r_c_br...@hushmail.com> wrote in message

news:eab1e64a-2c17-4f2b-884a-4e0a70fcf673@c18g2000prh.googlegroups.com....
On Jun 25, 11:31 pm, "Trevor Wilson"

tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote:
r_c_br...@hushmail.com> wrote in message

news:8b79bf11-eac1-4190-9edc-d2c2715cb0b4@t11g2000prh.googlegroups.com....
On Jun 24, 4:13 pm, "Trevor Wilson" <tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au
wrote:

r_c_br...@hushmail.com> wrote in message

news:7765e123-cdf0-465b-89d3-318fb32a2a65@d25g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
On Jun 23, 5:45 pm, "Trevor Wilson" <tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au
wrote:

r_c_br...@hushmail.com> wrote in message

news:a3d498e1-5309-4c6f-a2e9-453c1b60cc13@d38g2000prn.googlegroups..com...
On Jun 22, 9:32 pm, "Trevor Wilson"
tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au
wrote:

"Gray Ghost" <grey_ghost471-newsgro...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

news:Xns9C333361FA65Wereofftoseethewizrd@216.196.97.142...

"Trevor Wilson" <tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in
news:7aanffF1smtq5U1@mid.individual.net:

"Gray Ghost" <grey_ghost471-newsgro...@yahoo.com> wrote in
message
news:Xns9C32B2A694790Wereofftoseethewizrd@216.196.97.142...
"fritz" <fr...@address.com> wrote in
news:h1ora1$djm$00$1@news.t-online.com:

John - Melb <mcnamara_j...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:eaf35a3b-8ec1-45d4-a716-35ac3a1b2fe6@y10g2000prc.googlegroups.com..
.
I note Trevor failed to provide any evidence to support his
assertion
that dealers are posing as private citizens to sell guns to
criminals
at gun shows, without the necessary background checks,
despite
being
provided with evidence that this activity is illegal.

Clearly, Trevor has some evidence that this is going on.

I guess this shows exactly the sort of person Trevor is, he
has
evidence of a crime being committed, but fails to report
that
criminal
activity to the relevant authorities, despite the threat
this
criminal
activity poses to public safety, because the continuance of
this
criminal activity allows Trevor to ride his favourite
political
hobby-
horse on Usenet.

Gun-lover = one who has a truly pathetic personal disorder

Gun hater - a person who has a fear of inanimate objects and
retarded
sexual and emotional maturity and a indicator of Hoplophobia.

**I know of no person who "hates" inanimate objects. Perhaps
you'd
care
to cite some verifiable examples. I won'
t hold my breath.

Clearly you fear them and fear leds to hate.

**Projection. For the record: I have fired guns. I do not fear
them.

Hoplophobia (n.): The irrational fear of weapons, correctly
described
by
Freud as "a sign of emotional and sexual immaturity".

**Repeating a lie, does not make it truth. Whilst I'm certain
there
are
some people who do fear weapons, I can't say I've ever met
anyone
who
does. OTOH, I know a goodly number of people who do fear a
nutter
who
is
holding a gun at them. Perhaps you could cite some people who
fear
weapons. I won't hold my breath.

Nope that's your forte. How;s your buddy that can stop his
hjeart
to
take
a
shot?

**Inability to respond rationally, duly noted. SOP. I accept that
you
know
no one who fears guns.

Hoplophobia, like
homophobia, is a displacement symptom; hoplophobes fear their
own
"forbidden" feelings and urges to commit violence.

**Bollocks. This is projection, based on a flawed descriptor..

Constatnly projecting what others they don't know would do and
the
raging
threats by antis on this group would seem to prove you wrong.
Again.

**Nope. You cited the flawed descriptor and then went on to
project
your
own
opinions, based on that flawed descriptor.

This would be
harmless, except that they project these feelings onto others.
The
sequelae of this neurosis include irrational and dangerous
behaviors
such as passing "gun-control" laws and trashing the
Constitution.

**What is wrong with good, strong, sane gun control laws? Do
you
feel
that criminals, drunks, drug addicts and nutters should have
unfettered
access to firearms? Why do you feel that altering the US
Constitution
(which has been done many times in the past) to reflect common
sense,
logic and the progress of technology represents a "trashing of
the
Constitution"?

Trevor I'm not going down this raod with you.

**I'll allow you another opportunity to answer the questions. If
you
fail
to
do so, then we will all know, full well, that you are full of
shit.
Here
are
the questions:

* What is wrong with good, strong, sane gun control laws?

Nothing. Of course, what constitutes those laws needs to meet
Constitutional standards and general agreement.

**Indeed.

* Do you feel that criminals, drunks, drug addicts and nutters
should
have
unfettered access to firearms?

None of these groups - with a couple of possible exceptions - have
unfettered access to firearms now.

**Untrue. In many US jurisdictions, drug addicts, drunks, nutters
AND
criminals are able to purchase second hand guns with ease.

As I mentioned, it depends on the definitions of "criminal" and
"nutter".

**Those definitions are not difficult to quantify.

Good. Please provide your definitions.

I'll go one better:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/criminal

Okay, I'll assume "a person guilty or convicted of a crime". As
mentioned in an earlier message, ex-felons are generally barred from
firearm ownership, so there is no need for new laws in that case.
Your definition would include misdemeanor offenses, is that correct?

**Depends. Any violent offence should be enough to ensure that a person is
never allowed to own a firearm. However, the problem with US firearms laws
(as they exist in many jurisdictions), is that it is possible to sell a
second hand firearm to a criminal, without the seller first performing a
background check.

Are you referring to sales between private parties?

**Yep.

  For example, if I
owned any firearms, I could sell one to a friend or relative without
the background check, right?

**Depending on the jurisdiction, yes.
Click to expand...
Interesting. Do you know how large (or small) of a problem it is when
someone sells a firearm to a friend or relative? (I'm not referring
to sales to known criminals or "nutters", which is already against the
law).

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/nutter

Okay, slang for "an insane person". As mentioned in an earlier
message, people who are adjudicated as potentially harmful to
themselves or others due to a psychological disease are already barred
from firearm ownership. Looks like there is no need for new laws here
either.

**See above.

See above.
Click to expand...
Ditto.

See #2.

Exceptions might include ex-criminals. Ex-felons are generally
barred
from firearm ownership, so I'm thinking more of misdemeanor offenses
wherein the person has served their time.

Another exception might be "nutters", since the term is unclear.
People who are adjudicated as potentially harmful to themselves or
others due to a psychological disease - what I am currently assuming
you mean by "nutter" - are already barred from firearm ownership.

* Why do you feel that altering the US Constitution (which has
been
done
many times in the past) to reflect common sense, logic and the
progress
of
technology represents a "trashing of the Constitution"?

The Constitution has been amended 27 times. Amendments have been
proposed thousands of times, and failed. The Constitution was set up
to be amendable, but not easily.

What sort of amendment did you have in mind when you asked your
question?

**Read my question again.

Okay, I read it again.

**Then please explain how I can answer your question, in light of
mine.

How do you propose to change the Constitution to "reflect common
sense, logic and the progress of technology"?

**That is not for me to say, nor do. I am not a US citizen. Only US
citizens
may propose such actions.

Look at it from another direction: if I think that the Constitution
already does "reflect common sense, logic and the progress of
technology", and apparently you do not, what needs to change?

**Again: That is not for me to say. I am not a US citizen.

Please be specific, as you are fond of writing.

Now please answer my question.

**Re-read my question.

I did; you still haven't answered.

**Again: Re-read my question.

It is certainly possible to trample individual rights by amending the
Constitution.

**Indeed. It is also possible to alter the Constitution to reflect the
reality of modern society too. The US Constitution was written a few
hundred
years ago. Things have changed. Fortunately, the US Constitution was
concieved as a document which could be changed to reflect changes in
society.

The original - and current - purpose of the Constitution is to set up
the framework of the federal government, and to limit that government
to certain powers. Any powers not granted to the federal government
belong to the States. More importantly, rights belong to people, and
are not granted by government. There are several rights enumerated in
the Constitution, with an understanding (and an explicit statement)
that rights not enumerated still belong to the people.

Prohibition is an example of how not to amend the Constitution - it
restricted people's rights, and was rightfully repealed by amendment.
Other examples of potential (so far) amendments that would restrict
rights are the anti flag burning amendment and the anti gay marriage
amendment. These things are violations of the intent of the
Constitution.

If whatever you had in mind when you wrote "altering the US
Constitution (which has been done many times in the past) to reflect
common sense, logic and the progress of technology" - which you still
haven't explained - infringes unduly on individual rights, then that
would be another example of using the amendment process to trample
rights.

Now will you please answer my question?

**I was asking the question about why a (unstated) change to to
Constitution
represented a "trashing of the Constitution". I am still waiting for an
answer to that question. If you would care to answer for the other poster,
please feel free. Changes have been made to the US Constitution in the
past
and they will most probably be made in the future.

I just answered your question in detail above.  If there is something
about the answer that is unclear, please let me know.

**Certainly. NO response has been made to my question about "trashing the
Constitution".
Click to expand...
My detailed answer above directly addresses your question. If there
is something about the answer that is unclear, please let me know.

ALTERING the Constitution has been done many times and will
likely be done again.

Now will you please answer my question?

**Already done. See above.
Click to expand...
Not at all done, unless you mean "That is not for me to say. I am not
a US citizen."

--
Trevor Wilsonwww.rageaudio.com.au
Click to expand...
 
<r_c_brown@hushmail.com> wrote in message
news:c158628b-25c2-46ff-8db5-5a67b42fc469@y7g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
On Jun 26, 4:43 pm, "Trevor Wilson" <tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au>
wrote:
r_c_br...@hushmail.com> wrote in message

news:8531e48b-0390-4790-a147-2293aff694e5@v23g2000pro.googlegroups.com...
On Jun 26, 1:03 pm, "Trevor Wilson" <tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au
wrote:

r_c_br...@hushmail.com> wrote in message

news:eab1e64a-2c17-4f2b-884a-4e0a70fcf673@c18g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
On Jun 25, 11:31 pm, "Trevor Wilson"

tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote:
r_c_br...@hushmail.com> wrote in message

news:8b79bf11-eac1-4190-9edc-d2c2715cb0b4@t11g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
On Jun 24, 4:13 pm, "Trevor Wilson" <tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au
wrote:

r_c_br...@hushmail.com> wrote in message

news:7765e123-cdf0-465b-89d3-318fb32a2a65@d25g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
On Jun 23, 5:45 pm, "Trevor Wilson"
tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au
wrote:

r_c_br...@hushmail.com> wrote in message

news:a3d498e1-5309-4c6f-a2e9-453c1b60cc13@d38g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
On Jun 22, 9:32 pm, "Trevor Wilson"
tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au
wrote:

"Gray Ghost" <grey_ghost471-newsgro...@yahoo.com> wrote in
message

news:Xns9C333361FA65Wereofftoseethewizrd@216.196.97.142...

"Trevor Wilson" <tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in
news:7aanffF1smtq5U1@mid.individual.net:

"Gray Ghost" <grey_ghost471-newsgro...@yahoo.com> wrote in
message
news:Xns9C32B2A694790Wereofftoseethewizrd@216.196.97.142...
"fritz" <fr...@address.com> wrote in
news:h1ora1$djm$00$1@news.t-online.com:

John - Melb <mcnamara_j...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:eaf35a3b-8ec1-45d4-a716-35ac3a1b2fe6@y10g2000prc.googlegroups.com..
.
I note Trevor failed to provide any evidence to support
his
assertion
that dealers are posing as private citizens to sell guns
to
criminals
at gun shows, without the necessary background checks,
despite
being
provided with evidence that this activity is illegal.

Clearly, Trevor has some evidence that this is going on.

I guess this shows exactly the sort of person Trevor is,
he
has
evidence of a crime being committed, but fails to report
that
criminal
activity to the relevant authorities, despite the threat
this
criminal
activity poses to public safety, because the continuance
of
this
criminal activity allows Trevor to ride his favourite
political
hobby-
horse on Usenet.

Gun-lover = one who has a truly pathetic personal disorder

Gun hater - a person who has a fear of inanimate objects and
retarded
sexual and emotional maturity and a indicator of
Hoplophobia.

**I know of no person who "hates" inanimate objects. Perhaps
you'd
care
to cite some verifiable examples. I won'
t hold my breath.

Clearly you fear them and fear leds to hate.

**Projection. For the record: I have fired guns. I do not fear
them.

Hoplophobia (n.): The irrational fear of weapons, correctly
described
by
Freud as "a sign of emotional and sexual immaturity".

**Repeating a lie, does not make it truth. Whilst I'm certain
there
are
some people who do fear weapons, I can't say I've ever met
anyone
who
does. OTOH, I know a goodly number of people who do fear a
nutter
who
is
holding a gun at them. Perhaps you could cite some people who
fear
weapons. I won't hold my breath.

Nope that's your forte. How;s your buddy that can stop his
hjeart
to
take
a
shot?

**Inability to respond rationally, duly noted. SOP. I accept
that
you
know
no one who fears guns.

Hoplophobia, like
homophobia, is a displacement symptom; hoplophobes fear
their
own
"forbidden" feelings and urges to commit violence.

**Bollocks. This is projection, based on a flawed descriptor.

Constatnly projecting what others they don't know would do and
the
raging
threats by antis on this group would seem to prove you wrong.
Again.

**Nope. You cited the flawed descriptor and then went on to
project
your
own
opinions, based on that flawed descriptor.

This would be
harmless, except that they project these feelings onto
others.
The
sequelae of this neurosis include irrational and dangerous
behaviors
such as passing "gun-control" laws and trashing the
Constitution.

**What is wrong with good, strong, sane gun control laws? Do
you
feel
that criminals, drunks, drug addicts and nutters should have
unfettered
access to firearms? Why do you feel that altering the US
Constitution
(which has been done many times in the past) to reflect
common
sense,
logic and the progress of technology represents a "trashing
of
the
Constitution"?

Trevor I'm not going down this raod with you.

**I'll allow you another opportunity to answer the questions. If
you
fail
to
do so, then we will all know, full well, that you are full of
shit.
Here
are
the questions:

* What is wrong with good, strong, sane gun control laws?

Nothing. Of course, what constitutes those laws needs to meet
Constitutional standards and general agreement.

**Indeed.

* Do you feel that criminals, drunks, drug addicts and nutters
should
have
unfettered access to firearms?

None of these groups - with a couple of possible exceptions - have
unfettered access to firearms now.

**Untrue. In many US jurisdictions, drug addicts, drunks, nutters
AND
criminals are able to purchase second hand guns with ease.

As I mentioned, it depends on the definitions of "criminal" and
"nutter".

**Those definitions are not difficult to quantify.

Good. Please provide your definitions.

I'll go one better:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/criminal

Okay, I'll assume "a person guilty or convicted of a crime". As
mentioned in an earlier message, ex-felons are generally barred from
firearm ownership, so there is no need for new laws in that case.
Your definition would include misdemeanor offenses, is that correct?

**Depends. Any violent offence should be enough to ensure that a person
is
never allowed to own a firearm. However, the problem with US firearms
laws
(as they exist in many jurisdictions), is that it is possible to sell a
second hand firearm to a criminal, without the seller first performing a
background check.

Are you referring to sales between private parties?

**Yep.

For example, if I
owned any firearms, I could sell one to a friend or relative without
the background check, right?

**Depending on the jurisdiction, yes.
Click to expand...
Interesting. Do you know how large (or small) of a problem it is when
someone sells a firearm to a friend or relative?

**The precise size is unknown, as criminals tend not to be truthful when
telling the authorities where they obtain firearms. For instance: If
criminals told police that they obtained their guns from, oh, say, gun
shows, then that would cause a huge crack-down on gun shows, thsu causing
the criminals' source of guns to dry up. However, we know that some
criminals do buy their guns from friends and relatives. We know this from
the Columbine Massacre. So, although the problem may not be large (though it
could well be huge), it has been significant in recent times.

More crucially, however, employing the same restrictions on second hand gun
sales, as applied to new gun sales, hurts no one, except criminals.

(I'm not referring
to sales to known criminals or "nutters", which is already against the
law).

**It may be against the law, but, due to the poor shape of US gun control
laws in most jurisdictions, there is no mandatory background checks on
second hand sales. The seller has no way of knowing if the buyer has a
criminal record, unless a background check has been performed.


http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/nutter

Okay, slang for "an insane person". As mentioned in an earlier
message, people who are adjudicated as potentially harmful to
themselves or others due to a psychological disease are already barred
from firearm ownership. Looks like there is no need for new laws here
either.

**See above.

See above.
Click to expand...
Ditto.

See #2.

Exceptions might include ex-criminals. Ex-felons are generally
barred
from firearm ownership, so I'm thinking more of misdemeanor
offenses
wherein the person has served their time.

Another exception might be "nutters", since the term is unclear.
People who are adjudicated as potentially harmful to themselves or
others due to a psychological disease - what I am currently
assuming
you mean by "nutter" - are already barred from firearm ownership.

* Why do you feel that altering the US Constitution (which has
been
done
many times in the past) to reflect common sense, logic and the
progress
of
technology represents a "trashing of the Constitution"?

The Constitution has been amended 27 times. Amendments have been
proposed thousands of times, and failed. The Constitution was set
up
to be amendable, but not easily.

What sort of amendment did you have in mind when you asked your
question?

**Read my question again.

Okay, I read it again.

**Then please explain how I can answer your question, in light of
mine.

How do you propose to change the Constitution to "reflect common
sense, logic and the progress of technology"?

**That is not for me to say, nor do. I am not a US citizen. Only US
citizens
may propose such actions.

Look at it from another direction: if I think that the Constitution
already does "reflect common sense, logic and the progress of
technology", and apparently you do not, what needs to change?

**Again: That is not for me to say. I am not a US citizen.

Please be specific, as you are fond of writing.

Now please answer my question.

**Re-read my question.

I did; you still haven't answered.

**Again: Re-read my question.

It is certainly possible to trample individual rights by amending the
Constitution.

**Indeed. It is also possible to alter the Constitution to reflect the
reality of modern society too. The US Constitution was written a few
hundred
years ago. Things have changed. Fortunately, the US Constitution was
concieved as a document which could be changed to reflect changes in
society.

The original - and current - purpose of the Constitution is to set up
the framework of the federal government, and to limit that government
to certain powers. Any powers not granted to the federal government
belong to the States. More importantly, rights belong to people, and
are not granted by government. There are several rights enumerated in
the Constitution, with an understanding (and an explicit statement)
that rights not enumerated still belong to the people.

Prohibition is an example of how not to amend the Constitution - it
restricted people's rights, and was rightfully repealed by amendment.
Other examples of potential (so far) amendments that would restrict
rights are the anti flag burning amendment and the anti gay marriage
amendment. These things are violations of the intent of the
Constitution.

If whatever you had in mind when you wrote "altering the US
Constitution (which has been done many times in the past) to reflect
common sense, logic and the progress of technology" - which you still
haven't explained - infringes unduly on individual rights, then that
would be another example of using the amendment process to trample
rights.

Now will you please answer my question?

**I was asking the question about why a (unstated) change to to
Constitution
represented a "trashing of the Constitution". I am still waiting for an
answer to that question. If you would care to answer for the other
poster,
please feel free. Changes have been made to the US Constitution in the
past
and they will most probably be made in the future.

I just answered your question in detail above. If there is something
about the answer that is unclear, please let me know.

**Certainly. NO response has been made to my question about "trashing the
Constitution".
Click to expand...
My detailed answer above directly addresses your question.


**Well, no, it isn't. Fundamentally, however, you did not ask the original
question about "trashing the Constitution".

If there
is something about the answer that is unclear, please let me know.

**My question remains as it pertains to "trashing the Constitution".


ALTERING the Constitution has been done many times and will
likely be done again.

Now will you please answer my question?

**Already done. See above.
Click to expand...
Not at all done, unless you mean "That is not for me to say. I am not
a US citizen."

**Exactly.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au
 
On Jun 29, 9:36 am, "Trevor Wilson" <tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au>
wrote:
r_c_br...@hushmail.com> wrote in message

news:c158628b-25c2-46ff-8db5-5a67b42fc469@y7g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
On Jun 26, 4:43 pm, "Trevor Wilson" <tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au
wrote:





r_c_br...@hushmail.com> wrote in message

news:8531e48b-0390-4790-a147-2293aff694e5@v23g2000pro.googlegroups.com....
On Jun 26, 1:03 pm, "Trevor Wilson" <tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au
wrote:

r_c_br...@hushmail.com> wrote in message

news:eab1e64a-2c17-4f2b-884a-4e0a70fcf673@c18g2000prh.googlegroups.com....
On Jun 25, 11:31 pm, "Trevor Wilson"

tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote:
r_c_br...@hushmail.com> wrote in message

news:8b79bf11-eac1-4190-9edc-d2c2715cb0b4@t11g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
On Jun 24, 4:13 pm, "Trevor Wilson" <tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au
wrote:

r_c_br...@hushmail.com> wrote in message

news:7765e123-cdf0-465b-89d3-318fb32a2a65@d25g2000prn.googlegroups..com...
On Jun 23, 5:45 pm, "Trevor Wilson"
tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au
wrote:

r_c_br...@hushmail.com> wrote in message

news:a3d498e1-5309-4c6f-a2e9-453c1b60cc13@d38g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
On Jun 22, 9:32 pm, "Trevor Wilson"
tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au
wrote:

"Gray Ghost" <grey_ghost471-newsgro...@yahoo.com> wrote in
message

news:Xns9C333361FA65Wereofftoseethewizrd@216.196.97.142...

"Trevor Wilson" <tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in
news:7aanffF1smtq5U1@mid.individual.net:

"Gray Ghost" <grey_ghost471-newsgro...@yahoo.com> wrote in
message
news:Xns9C32B2A694790Wereofftoseethewizrd@216.196.97.142...
"fritz" <fr...@address.com> wrote in
news:h1ora1$djm$00$1@news.t-online.com:

John - Melb <mcnamara_j...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:eaf35a3b-8ec1-45d4-a716-35ac3a1b2fe6@y10g2000prc.googlegroups.com..
.
I note Trevor failed to provide any evidence to support
his
assertion
that dealers are posing as private citizens to sell guns
to
criminals
at gun shows, without the necessary background checks,
despite
being
provided with evidence that this activity is illegal.

Clearly, Trevor has some evidence that this is going on..

I guess this shows exactly the sort of person Trevor is,
he
has
evidence of a crime being committed, but fails to report
that
criminal
activity to the relevant authorities, despite the threat
this
criminal
activity poses to public safety, because the continuance
of
this
criminal activity allows Trevor to ride his favourite
political
hobby-
horse on Usenet.

Gun-lover = one who has a truly pathetic personal disorder

Gun hater - a person who has a fear of inanimate objects and
retarded
sexual and emotional maturity and a indicator of
Hoplophobia.

**I know of no person who "hates" inanimate objects. Perhaps
you'd
care
to cite some verifiable examples. I won'
t hold my breath.

Clearly you fear them and fear leds to hate.

**Projection. For the record: I have fired guns. I do not fear
them.

Hoplophobia (n.): The irrational fear of weapons, correctly
described
by
Freud as "a sign of emotional and sexual immaturity".

**Repeating a lie, does not make it truth. Whilst I'm certain
there
are
some people who do fear weapons, I can't say I've ever met
anyone
who
does. OTOH, I know a goodly number of people who do fear a
nutter
who
is
holding a gun at them. Perhaps you could cite some people who
fear
weapons. I won't hold my breath.

Nope that's your forte. How;s your buddy that can stop his
hjeart
to
take
a
shot?

**Inability to respond rationally, duly noted. SOP. I accept
that
you
know
no one who fears guns.

Hoplophobia, like
homophobia, is a displacement symptom; hoplophobes fear
their
own
"forbidden" feelings and urges to commit violence.

**Bollocks. This is projection, based on a flawed descriptor.

Constatnly projecting what others they don't know would do and
the
raging
threats by antis on this group would seem to prove you wrong.
Again.

**Nope. You cited the flawed descriptor and then went on to
project
your
own
opinions, based on that flawed descriptor.

This would be
harmless, except that they project these feelings onto
others.
The
sequelae of this neurosis include irrational and dangerous
behaviors
such as passing "gun-control" laws and trashing the
Constitution.

**What is wrong with good, strong, sane gun control laws? Do
you
feel
that criminals, drunks, drug addicts and nutters should have
unfettered
access to firearms? Why do you feel that altering the US
Constitution
(which has been done many times in the past) to reflect
common
sense,
logic and the progress of technology represents a "trashing
of
the
Constitution"?

Trevor I'm not going down this raod with you.

**I'll allow you another opportunity to answer the questions. If
you
fail
to
do so, then we will all know, full well, that you are full of
shit.
Here
are
the questions:

* What is wrong with good, strong, sane gun control laws?

Nothing. Of course, what constitutes those laws needs to meet
Constitutional standards and general agreement.

**Indeed.

* Do you feel that criminals, drunks, drug addicts and nutters
should
have
unfettered access to firearms?

None of these groups - with a couple of possible exceptions - have
unfettered access to firearms now.

**Untrue. In many US jurisdictions, drug addicts, drunks, nutters
AND
criminals are able to purchase second hand guns with ease.

As I mentioned, it depends on the definitions of "criminal" and
"nutter".

**Those definitions are not difficult to quantify.

Good. Please provide your definitions.

I'll go one better:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/criminal

Okay, I'll assume "a person guilty or convicted of a crime". As
mentioned in an earlier message, ex-felons are generally barred from
firearm ownership, so there is no need for new laws in that case.
Your definition would include misdemeanor offenses, is that correct?

**Depends. Any violent offence should be enough to ensure that a person
is
never allowed to own a firearm. However, the problem with US firearms
laws
(as they exist in many jurisdictions), is that it is possible to sell a
second hand firearm to a criminal, without the seller first performing a
background check.

Are you referring to sales between private parties?

**Yep.

For example, if I
owned any firearms, I could sell one to a friend or relative without
the background check, right?

**Depending on the jurisdiction, yes.

Interesting.  Do you know how large (or small) of a problem it is when
someone sells a firearm to a friend or relative?

**The precise size is unknown, as criminals tend not to be truthful when
telling the authorities where they obtain firearms. For instance: If
criminals told police that they obtained their guns from, oh, say, gun
shows, then that would cause a huge crack-down on gun shows, thsu causing
the criminals' source of guns to dry up. However, we know that some
criminals do buy their guns from friends and relatives. We know this from
the Columbine Massacre. So, although the problem may not be large (though it
could well be huge), it has been significant in recent times.
Click to expand...
So, Trevor has some evidence that a crack down on gun shows would
cause the criminals source of guns to dry up? Gee, I'd like to see
that, but I wont hold my breathwaiting for Tosspot to provide the
evidence to support that assertion.

More crucially, however, employing the same restrictions on second hand gun
sales, as applied to new gun sales, hurts no one, except criminals.
Click to expand...
And, of course provide the database for a registration system, which
would inevitibaly lead to a tightening of laws and the banning of
private possession of certain types of firearms, as has already been
the case in Britain, Australia and countless other jurisdictions.
Remember folks, gun control isn't about guns, it's about control.

  (I'm not referring
to sales to known criminals or "nutters", which is already against the
law).

**It may be against the law, but, due to the poor shape of US gun control
laws in most jurisdictions, there is no mandatory background checks on
second hand sales. The seller has no way of knowing if the buyer has a
criminal record, unless a background check has been performed.





http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/nutter

Okay,

...

read more ť- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -
Click to expand...
 
Trevor Wilson wrote:
r_c_brown@hushmail.com> wrote in message
news:c158628b-25c2-46ff-8db5-5a67b42fc469@y7g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
On Jun 26, 4:43 pm, "Trevor Wilson" <tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au
wrote:
r_c_br...@hushmail.com> wrote in message

news:8531e48b-0390-4790-a147-2293aff694e5@v23g2000pro.googlegroups.com...
On Jun 26, 1:03 pm, "Trevor Wilson" <tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au
wrote:

r_c_br...@hushmail.com> wrote in message
news:eab1e64a-2c17-4f2b-884a-4e0a70fcf673@c18g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
On Jun 25, 11:31 pm, "Trevor Wilson"
tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote:
r_c_br...@hushmail.com> wrote in message
news:8b79bf11-eac1-4190-9edc-d2c2715cb0b4@t11g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
On Jun 24, 4:13 pm, "Trevor Wilson" <tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au
wrote:
r_c_br...@hushmail.com> wrote in message
news:7765e123-cdf0-465b-89d3-318fb32a2a65@d25g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
On Jun 23, 5:45 pm, "Trevor Wilson"
tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au
wrote:
r_c_br...@hushmail.com> wrote in message
news:a3d498e1-5309-4c6f-a2e9-453c1b60cc13@d38g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
On Jun 22, 9:32 pm, "Trevor Wilson"
tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au
wrote:
"Gray Ghost" <grey_ghost471-newsgro...@yahoo.com> wrote in
message
news:Xns9C333361FA65Wereofftoseethewizrd@216.196.97.142...
"Trevor Wilson" <tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in
news:7aanffF1smtq5U1@mid.individual.net:
"Gray Ghost" <grey_ghost471-newsgro...@yahoo.com> wrote in
message
news:Xns9C32B2A694790Wereofftoseethewizrd@216.196.97.142...
"fritz" <fr...@address.com> wrote in
news:h1ora1$djm$00$1@news.t-online.com:
John - Melb <mcnamara_j...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:eaf35a3b-8ec1-45d4-a716-35ac3a1b2fe6@y10g2000prc.googlegroups.com..
.
I note Trevor failed to provide any evidence to support
his
assertion
that dealers are posing as private citizens to sell guns
to
criminals
at gun shows, without the necessary background checks,
despite
being
provided with evidence that this activity is illegal.
Clearly, Trevor has some evidence that this is going on.
I guess this shows exactly the sort of person Trevor is,
he
has
evidence of a crime being committed, but fails to report
that
criminal
activity to the relevant authorities, despite the threat
this
criminal
activity poses to public safety, because the continuance
of
this
criminal activity allows Trevor to ride his favourite
political
hobby-
horse on Usenet.
Gun-lover = one who has a truly pathetic personal disorder
Gun hater - a person who has a fear of inanimate objects and
retarded
sexual and emotional maturity and a indicator of
Hoplophobia.
**I know of no person who "hates" inanimate objects. Perhaps
you'd
care
to cite some verifiable examples. I won'
t hold my breath.
Clearly you fear them and fear leds to hate.
**Projection. For the record: I have fired guns. I do not fear
them.
Hoplophobia (n.): The irrational fear of weapons, correctly
described
by
Freud as "a sign of emotional and sexual immaturity".
**Repeating a lie, does not make it truth. Whilst I'm certain
there
are
some people who do fear weapons, I can't say I've ever met
anyone
who
does. OTOH, I know a goodly number of people who do fear a
nutter
who
is
holding a gun at them. Perhaps you could cite some people who
fear
weapons. I won't hold my breath.
Nope that's your forte. How;s your buddy that can stop his
hjeart
to
take
a
shot?
**Inability to respond rationally, duly noted. SOP. I accept
that
you
know
no one who fears guns.
Hoplophobia, like
homophobia, is a displacement symptom; hoplophobes fear
their
own
"forbidden" feelings and urges to commit violence.
**Bollocks. This is projection, based on a flawed descriptor.
Constatnly projecting what others they don't know would do and
the
raging
threats by antis on this group would seem to prove you wrong.
Again.
**Nope. You cited the flawed descriptor and then went on to
project
your
own
opinions, based on that flawed descriptor.
This would be
harmless, except that they project these feelings onto
others.
The
sequelae of this neurosis include irrational and dangerous
behaviors
such as passing "gun-control" laws and trashing the
Constitution.
**What is wrong with good, strong, sane gun control laws? Do
you
feel
that criminals, drunks, drug addicts and nutters should have
unfettered
access to firearms? Why do you feel that altering the US
Constitution
(which has been done many times in the past) to reflect
common
sense,
logic and the progress of technology represents a "trashing
of
the
Constitution"?
Trevor I'm not going down this raod with you.
**I'll allow you another opportunity to answer the questions. If
you
fail
to
do so, then we will all know, full well, that you are full of
shit.
Here
are
the questions:
* What is wrong with good, strong, sane gun control laws?
Nothing. Of course, what constitutes those laws needs to meet
Constitutional standards and general agreement.
**Indeed.
* Do you feel that criminals, drunks, drug addicts and nutters
should
have
unfettered access to firearms?
None of these groups - with a couple of possible exceptions - have
unfettered access to firearms now.
**Untrue. In many US jurisdictions, drug addicts, drunks, nutters
AND
criminals are able to purchase second hand guns with ease.
As I mentioned, it depends on the definitions of "criminal" and
"nutter".
**Those definitions are not difficult to quantify.
Good. Please provide your definitions.
I'll go one better:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/criminal
Okay, I'll assume "a person guilty or convicted of a crime". As
mentioned in an earlier message, ex-felons are generally barred from
firearm ownership, so there is no need for new laws in that case.
Your definition would include misdemeanor offenses, is that correct?
**Depends. Any violent offence should be enough to ensure that a person
is
never allowed to own a firearm. However, the problem with US firearms
laws
(as they exist in many jurisdictions), is that it is possible to sell a
second hand firearm to a criminal, without the seller first performing a
background check.
Are you referring to sales between private parties?

**Yep.

For example, if I
owned any firearms, I could sell one to a friend or relative without
the background check, right?

**Depending on the jurisdiction, yes.


Interesting. Do you know how large (or small) of a problem it is when
someone sells a firearm to a friend or relative?

**The precise size is unknown, as criminals tend not to be truthful when
telling the authorities where they obtain firearms. For instance: If
criminals told police that they obtained their guns from, oh, say, gun
shows, then that would cause a huge crack-down on gun shows, thsu causing
the criminals' source of guns to dry up. However, we know that some
criminals do buy their guns from friends and relatives. We know this from
the Columbine Massacre. So, although the problem may not be large (though it
could well be huge), it has been significant in recent times.

More crucially, however, employing the same restrictions on second hand gun
sales, as applied to new gun sales, hurts no one, except criminals.
Click to expand...
I disagree, several years ago I missed out on a really good deal because
the NICS was down and neither I nor the dealer were local to the area,
nor too each other and it would have been more expense and trouble than
it was worth to arrange a meeting at another time.

So please define this assertion of yours that "no one is hurt", because
it's BS. Nor have I seen ANY evidence to show that such background
checks in the 18 states that mandate them has done ANYTHING to control
criminal access to guns or reduced the number of criminals with guns.

As such, it's my belief that you're talking through your ass and
claiming all sorts of fantasy results which can't been shown to exist
anyplace it's been implemented.

So. before we require a lot of background checks, why don't you first
show us that they actually have a demonstrated, verifiable benefit.

Oh, and tell me again why we shouldn't simply issue special ID to
prohibited individuals so that a background check consists simply of
looking at their government issued photo ID???
 
On Jun 29, 9:29 pm, Scout <me4g...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net>
wrote:
Trevor Wilson wrote:
r_c_br...@hushmail.com> wrote in message
news:c158628b-25c2-46ff-8db5-5a67b42fc469@y7g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
On Jun 26, 4:43 pm, "Trevor Wilson" <tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au
wrote:
r_c_br...@hushmail.com> wrote in message

news:8531e48b-0390-4790-a147-2293aff694e5@v23g2000pro.googlegroups.com....
On Jun 26, 1:03 pm, "Trevor Wilson" <tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au
wrote:

r_c_br...@hushmail.com> wrote in message
news:eab1e64a-2c17-4f2b-884a-4e0a70fcf673@c18g2000prh.googlegroups.com....
On Jun 25, 11:31 pm, "Trevor Wilson"
tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote:
r_c_br...@hushmail.com> wrote in message
news:8b79bf11-eac1-4190-9edc-d2c2715cb0b4@t11g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
On Jun 24, 4:13 pm, "Trevor Wilson" <tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au
wrote:
r_c_br...@hushmail.com> wrote in message
news:7765e123-cdf0-465b-89d3-318fb32a2a65@d25g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
On Jun 23, 5:45 pm, "Trevor Wilson"
tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au
wrote:
r_c_br...@hushmail.com> wrote in message
news:a3d498e1-5309-4c6f-a2e9-453c1b60cc13@d38g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
On Jun 22, 9:32 pm, "Trevor Wilson"
tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au
wrote:
"Gray Ghost" <grey_ghost471-newsgro...@yahoo.com> wrote in
message
news:Xns9C333361FA65Wereofftoseethewizrd@216.196.97.142...
"Trevor Wilson" <tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in
news:7aanffF1smtq5U1@mid.individual.net:
"Gray Ghost" <grey_ghost471-newsgro...@yahoo.com> wrote in
message
news:Xns9C32B2A694790Wereofftoseethewizrd@216.196.97.142...
"fritz" <fr...@address.com> wrote in
news:h1ora1$djm$00$1@news.t-online.com:
John - Melb <mcnamara_j...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:eaf35a3b-8ec1-45d4-a716-35ac3a1b2fe6@y10g2000prc.googlegroups.com..
.
I note Trevor failed to provide any evidence to support
his
assertion
that dealers are posing as private citizens to sell guns
to
criminals
at gun shows, without the necessary background checks,
despite
being
provided with evidence that this activity is illegal.
Clearly, Trevor has some evidence that this is going on.
I guess this shows exactly the sort of person Trevor is,
he
has
evidence of a crime being committed, but fails to report
that
criminal
activity to the relevant authorities, despite the threat
this
criminal
activity poses to public safety, because the continuance
of
this
criminal activity allows Trevor to ride his favourite
political
hobby-
horse on Usenet.
Gun-lover = one who has a truly pathetic personal disorder
Gun hater - a person who has a fear of inanimate objects and
retarded
sexual and emotional maturity and a indicator of
Hoplophobia.
**I know of no person who "hates" inanimate objects. Perhaps
you'd
care
to cite some verifiable examples. I won'
t hold my breath.
Clearly you fear them and fear leds to hate.
**Projection. For the record: I have fired guns. I do not fear
them.
Hoplophobia (n.): The irrational fear of weapons, correctly
described
by
Freud as "a sign of emotional and sexual immaturity".
**Repeating a lie, does not make it truth. Whilst I'm certain
there
are
some people who do fear weapons, I can't say I've ever met
anyone
who
does. OTOH, I know a goodly number of people who do fear a
nutter
who
is
holding a gun at them. Perhaps you could cite some people who
fear
weapons. I won't hold my breath.
Nope that's your forte. How;s your buddy that can stop his
hjeart
to
take
a
shot?
**Inability to respond rationally, duly noted. SOP. I accept
that
you
know
no one who fears guns.
Hoplophobia, like
homophobia, is a displacement symptom; hoplophobes fear
their
own
"forbidden" feelings and urges to commit violence.
**Bollocks. This is projection, based on a flawed descriptor.
Constatnly projecting what others they don't know would do and
the
raging
threats by antis on this group would seem to prove you wrong.
Again.
**Nope. You cited the flawed descriptor and then went on to
project
your
own
opinions, based on that flawed descriptor.
This would be
harmless, except that they project these feelings onto
others.
The
sequelae of this neurosis include irrational and dangerous
behaviors
such as passing "gun-control" laws and trashing the
Constitution.
**What is wrong with good, strong, sane gun control laws? Do
you
feel
that criminals, drunks, drug addicts and nutters should have
unfettered
access to firearms? Why do you feel that altering the US
Constitution
(which has been done many times in the past) to reflect
common
sense,
logic and the progress of technology represents a "trashing
of
the
Constitution"?
Trevor I'm not going down this raod with you.
**I'll allow you another opportunity to answer the questions. If
you
fail
to
do so, then we will all know, full well, that you are full of
shit.
Here
are
the questions:
* What is wrong with good, strong, sane gun control laws?
Nothing. Of course, what constitutes those laws needs to meet
Constitutional standards and general agreement.
**Indeed.
* Do you feel that criminals, drunks, drug addicts and nutters
should
have
unfettered access to firearms?
None of these groups - with a couple of possible exceptions - have
unfettered access to firearms now.
**Untrue. In many US jurisdictions, drug addicts, drunks, nutters
AND
criminals are able to purchase second hand guns with ease.
As I mentioned, it depends on the definitions of "criminal" and
"nutter".
**Those definitions are not difficult to quantify.
Good. Please provide your definitions.
I'll go one better:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/criminal
Okay, I'll assume "a person guilty or convicted of a crime". As
mentioned in an earlier message, ex-felons are generally barred from
firearm ownership, so there is no need for new laws in that case.
Your definition would include misdemeanor offenses, is that correct?
**Depends. Any violent offence should be enough to ensure that a person
is
never allowed to own a firearm. However, the problem with US firearms
laws
(as they exist in many jurisdictions), is that it is possible to sell a
second hand firearm to a criminal, without the seller first performing a
background check.
Are you referring to sales between private parties?

**Yep.

For example, if I
owned any firearms, I could sell one to a friend or relative without
the background check, right?

**Depending on the jurisdiction, yes.

Interesting.  Do you know how large (or small) of a problem it is when
someone sells a firearm to a friend or relative?

**The precise size is unknown, as criminals tend not to be truthful when
telling the authorities where they obtain firearms. For instance: If
criminals told police that they obtained their guns from, oh, say, gun
shows, then that would cause a huge crack-down on gun shows, thsu causing
the criminals' source of guns to dry up. However, we know that some
criminals do buy their guns from friends and relatives. We know this from
the Columbine Massacre. So, although the problem may not be large (though it
could well be huge), it has been significant in recent times.

More crucially, however, employing the same restrictions on second hand gun
sales, as applied to new gun sales, hurts no one, except criminals.

I disagree, several years ago I missed out on a really good deal because
the NICS was down and neither I nor the dealer were local to the area,
nor too each other and it would have been more expense and trouble than
it was worth to arrange a meeting at another time.

So please define this assertion of yours that "no one is hurt", because
it's BS. Nor have I seen ANY evidence to show that such background
checks in the 18 states that mandate them has done ANYTHING to control
criminal access to guns or reduced the number of criminals with guns.

As such, it's my belief that you're talking through your ass and
claiming all sorts of fantasy results which can't been shown to exist
anyplace it's been implemented.

So. before we require a lot of background checks, why don't you first
show us that they actually have a demonstrated, verifiable benefit.

Oh, and tell me again why we shouldn't simply issue special ID to
prohibited individuals so that a background check consists simply of
looking at their government issued photo ID???- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -
Click to expand...
You believe that Trevor is talking through his arse, and you sound
surprised?
 
Scout <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote in
news:3A12m.4871$6A3.1257@newsfe20.iad:

Trevor Wilson wrote:
r_c_brown@hushmail.com> wrote in message
news:c158628b-25c2-46ff-8db5-5a67b42fc469@y7g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
On Jun 26, 4:43 pm, "Trevor Wilson" <tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au
wrote:
r_c_br...@hushmail.com> wrote in message

news:8531e48b-0390-4790-a147-2293aff694e5@v23g2000pro.googlegroups.com..
. On Jun 26, 1:03 pm, "Trevor Wilson"
tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote:

r_c_br...@hushmail.com> wrote in message
news:eab1e64a-2c17-4f2b-884a-4e0a70fcf673@c18g2000prh.googlegroups.com.
.. On Jun 25, 11:31 pm, "Trevor Wilson"
tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote:
r_c_br...@hushmail.com> wrote in message
news:8b79bf11-eac1-4190-9edc-d2c2715cb0b4@t11g2000prh.googlegroups.com
... On Jun 24, 4:13 pm, "Trevor Wilson"
tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote:
r_c_br...@hushmail.com> wrote in message
news:7765e123-cdf0-465b-89d3-318fb32a2a65@d25g2000prn.googlegroups.co
m... On Jun 23, 5:45 pm, "Trevor Wilson"
tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote:
r_c_br...@hushmail.com> wrote in message
news:a3d498e1-5309-4c6f-a2e9-453c1b60cc13@d38g2000prn.googlegroups.c
om... On Jun 22, 9:32 pm, "Trevor Wilson"
tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote:
"Gray Ghost" <grey_ghost471-newsgro...@yahoo.com> wrote in
message news:Xns9C333361FA65Wereofftoseethewizrd@216.196.97.142...
"Trevor Wilson" <tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in
news:7aanffF1smtq5U1@mid.individual.net:
"Gray Ghost" <grey_ghost471-newsgro...@yahoo.com> wrote in
message
news:Xns9C32B2A694790Wereofftoseethewizrd@216.196.97.142...
"fritz" <fr...@address.com> wrote in
news:h1ora1$djm$00$1@news.t-online.com:
John - Melb <mcnamara_j...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:eaf35a3b-8ec1-45d4-a716-35ac3a1b2fe6@y10g2000prc.googlegro
ups.com.. .
I note Trevor failed to provide any evidence to support his
assertion that dealers are posing as private citizens to sell
guns to criminals at gun shows, without the necessary
background checks, despite being provided with evidence that
this activity is illegal. Clearly, Trevor has some evidence
that this is going on. I guess this shows exactly the sort of
person Trevor is, he has evidence of a crime being
committed, but fails to report that criminal activity to the
relevant authorities, despite the threat this criminal
activity poses to public safety, because the continuance of
this criminal activity allows Trevor to ride his favourite
political hobby- horse on Usenet.
Gun-lover = one who has a truly pathetic personal disorder
Gun hater - a person who has a fear of inanimate objects and
retarded sexual and emotional maturity and a indicator of
Hoplophobia.
**I know of no person who "hates" inanimate objects. Perhaps
you'd care to cite some verifiable examples. I won'
t hold my breath.
Clearly you fear them and fear leds to hate.
**Projection. For the record: I have fired guns. I do not fear
them.
Hoplophobia (n.): The irrational fear of weapons, correctly
described by Freud as "a sign of emotional and sexual
immaturity".
**Repeating a lie, does not make it truth. Whilst I'm certain
there are some people who do fear weapons, I can't say I've ever
met anyone who does. OTOH, I know a goodly number of people who
do fear a nutter who is holding a gun at them. Perhaps you could
cite some people who fear weapons. I won't hold my breath.
Nope that's your forte. How;s your buddy that can stop his hjeart
to take a shot?
**Inability to respond rationally, duly noted. SOP. I accept that
you know no one who fears guns.
Hoplophobia, like
homophobia, is a displacement symptom; hoplophobes fear their
own "forbidden" feelings and urges to commit violence.
**Bollocks. This is projection, based on a flawed descriptor.
Constatnly projecting what others they don't know would do and
the raging threats by antis on this group would seem to prove you
wrong. Again.
**Nope. You cited the flawed descriptor and then went on to
project your own opinions, based on that flawed descriptor.
This would be
harmless, except that they project these feelings onto others.
The
sequelae of this neurosis include irrational and dangerous
behaviors such as passing "gun-control" laws and trashing the
Constitution.
**What is wrong with good, strong, sane gun control laws? Do you
feel that criminals, drunks, drug addicts and nutters should
have unfettered access to firearms? Why do you feel that
altering the US Constitution
(which has been done many times in the past) to reflect common
sense, logic and the progress of technology represents a
"trashing of the Constitution"?
Trevor I'm not going down this raod with you.
**I'll allow you another opportunity to answer the questions. If
you fail to do so, then we will all know, full well, that you are
full of shit. Here
are
the questions:
* What is wrong with good, strong, sane gun control laws?
Nothing. Of course, what constitutes those laws needs to meet
Constitutional standards and general agreement. **Indeed.
* Do you feel that criminals, drunks, drug addicts and nutters
should have unfettered access to firearms?
None of these groups - with a couple of possible exceptions - have
unfettered access to firearms now.
**Untrue. In many US jurisdictions, drug addicts, drunks, nutters
AND
criminals are able to purchase second hand guns with ease.
As I mentioned, it depends on the definitions of "criminal" and
"nutter". **Those definitions are not difficult to quantify.
Good. Please provide your definitions.
I'll go one better:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/criminal
Okay, I'll assume "a person guilty or convicted of a crime". As
mentioned in an earlier message, ex-felons are generally barred from
firearm ownership, so there is no need for new laws in that case.
Your definition would include misdemeanor offenses, is that correct?
**Depends. Any violent offence should be enough to ensure that a
person is never allowed to own a firearm. However, the problem with
US firearms laws (as they exist in many jurisdictions), is that it is
possible to sell a second hand firearm to a criminal, without the
seller first performing a background check.
Are you referring to sales between private parties?

**Yep.

For example, if I
owned any firearms, I could sell one to a friend or relative without
the background check, right?

**Depending on the jurisdiction, yes.


Interesting. Do you know how large (or small) of a problem it is when
someone sells a firearm to a friend or relative?

**The precise size is unknown, as criminals tend not to be truthful when
telling the authorities where they obtain firearms. For instance: If
criminals told police that they obtained their guns from, oh, say, gun
shows, then that would cause a huge crack-down on gun shows, thsu
causing the criminals' source of guns to dry up. However, we know that
some criminals do buy their guns from friends and relatives. We know
this from the Columbine Massacre. So, although the problem may not be
large (though it could well be huge), it has been significant in recent
times.

More crucially, however, employing the same restrictions on second hand
gun sales, as applied to new gun sales, hurts no one, except criminals.

I disagree, several years ago I missed out on a really good deal because
the NICS was down and neither I nor the dealer were local to the area,
nor too each other and it would have been more expense and trouble than
it was worth to arrange a meeting at another time.

So please define this assertion of yours that "no one is hurt", because
it's BS. Nor have I seen ANY evidence to show that such background
checks in the 18 states that mandate them has done ANYTHING to control
criminal access to guns or reduced the number of criminals with guns.

As such, it's my belief that you're talking through your ass and
claiming all sorts of fantasy results which can't been shown to exist
anyplace it's been implemented.

So. before we require a lot of background checks, why don't you first
show us that they actually have a demonstrated, verifiable benefit.

Oh, and tell me again why we shouldn't simply issue special ID to
prohibited individuals so that a background check consists simply of
looking at their government issued photo ID???
Click to expand...
Perhaps we should ask Trevor how it is that givne the large number of stops
by the NICS that only a tiny percentage are pursued for having committed a
federal felony and an even tinier percentage are actually found guilty or
pled out.

IOW

According to the US DOJ

# In 2007 over 8.6 million applications for firearm transfers or permits were
subject to background checks under the Brady Act and similar state laws.
# From the inception of the Brady Act in March 1994 through December 2007,
more than 87 million applications for firearm transfers were subject to
background checks. About 1,631,000 applications were rejected.
# Among state checking agencies in 2007, 39% of all rejections for firearm
transfers were due to a felony conviction.
# Among all agencies conducting background checks, 64% of applications were
denied due to reasons other than a felony conviction in 2007.

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/crs.htm#background

Furthermore
"We also found that less than 1 percent of the individuals who committed
Brady Act violations were prosecuted."
http://www.usdoj.gov/oig/reports/ATF/e0406/concl.htm

Basically a tiny percentage of denials are pursued with final convictions
measured in 10s.

http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/bjs/grants/222474.pdf

Anything so blaringly incompetent hurts gun owners on all levels, cost of
system, people denied who appear to not be guilty of anything - the basic
Brady Act violation is worth 10 years at Club Fed and you you a signed
document to prove it - lack of pursuit of actual criminals.

Trevor of course will huff and puff and blow himself down.
--
Always remember:

Bull Connor was a Democrat!
 
"Scout" <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote in message
news:3A12m.4871$6A3.1257@newsfe20.iad...
Trevor Wilson wrote:
r_c_brown@hushmail.com> wrote in message
news:c158628b-25c2-46ff-8db5-5a67b42fc469@y7g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
On Jun 26, 4:43 pm, "Trevor Wilson" <tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au
wrote:
r_c_br...@hushmail.com> wrote in message

news:8531e48b-0390-4790-a147-2293aff694e5@v23g2000pro.googlegroups.com...
On Jun 26, 1:03 pm, "Trevor Wilson" <tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au
wrote:

r_c_br...@hushmail.com> wrote in message
news:eab1e64a-2c17-4f2b-884a-4e0a70fcf673@c18g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
On Jun 25, 11:31 pm, "Trevor Wilson"
tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote:
r_c_br...@hushmail.com> wrote in message
news:8b79bf11-eac1-4190-9edc-d2c2715cb0b4@t11g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
On Jun 24, 4:13 pm, "Trevor Wilson" <tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au
wrote:
r_c_br...@hushmail.com> wrote in message
news:7765e123-cdf0-465b-89d3-318fb32a2a65@d25g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
On Jun 23, 5:45 pm, "Trevor Wilson"
tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au
wrote:
r_c_br...@hushmail.com> wrote in message
news:a3d498e1-5309-4c6f-a2e9-453c1b60cc13@d38g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
On Jun 22, 9:32 pm, "Trevor Wilson"
tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au
wrote:
"Gray Ghost" <grey_ghost471-newsgro...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9C333361FA65Wereofftoseethewizrd@216.196.97.142...
"Trevor Wilson" <tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in
news:7aanffF1smtq5U1@mid.individual.net:
"Gray Ghost" <grey_ghost471-newsgro...@yahoo.com> wrote in
message
news:Xns9C32B2A694790Wereofftoseethewizrd@216.196.97.142...
"fritz" <fr...@address.com> wrote in
news:h1ora1$djm$00$1@news.t-online.com:
John - Melb <mcnamara_j...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:eaf35a3b-8ec1-45d4-a716-35ac3a1b2fe6@y10g2000prc.googlegroups.com..
.
I note Trevor failed to provide any evidence to support his
assertion
that dealers are posing as private citizens to sell guns to
criminals
at gun shows, without the necessary background checks,
despite
being
provided with evidence that this activity is illegal.
Clearly, Trevor has some evidence that this is going on.
I guess this shows exactly the sort of person Trevor is, he
has
evidence of a crime being committed, but fails to report
that
criminal
activity to the relevant authorities, despite the threat
this
criminal
activity poses to public safety, because the continuance of
this
criminal activity allows Trevor to ride his favourite
political
hobby-
horse on Usenet.
Gun-lover = one who has a truly pathetic personal disorder
Gun hater - a person who has a fear of inanimate objects and
retarded
sexual and emotional maturity and a indicator of Hoplophobia.
**I know of no person who "hates" inanimate objects. Perhaps
you'd
care
to cite some verifiable examples. I won'
t hold my breath.
Clearly you fear them and fear leds to hate.
**Projection. For the record: I have fired guns. I do not fear
them.
Hoplophobia (n.): The irrational fear of weapons, correctly
described
by
Freud as "a sign of emotional and sexual immaturity".
**Repeating a lie, does not make it truth. Whilst I'm certain
there
are
some people who do fear weapons, I can't say I've ever met
anyone
who
does. OTOH, I know a goodly number of people who do fear a
nutter
who
is
holding a gun at them. Perhaps you could cite some people who
fear
weapons. I won't hold my breath.
Nope that's your forte. How;s your buddy that can stop his
hjeart
to
take
a
shot?
**Inability to respond rationally, duly noted. SOP. I accept that
you
know
no one who fears guns.
Hoplophobia, like
homophobia, is a displacement symptom; hoplophobes fear their
own
"forbidden" feelings and urges to commit violence.
**Bollocks. This is projection, based on a flawed descriptor.
Constatnly projecting what others they don't know would do and
the
raging
threats by antis on this group would seem to prove you wrong.
Again.
**Nope. You cited the flawed descriptor and then went on to
project
your
own
opinions, based on that flawed descriptor.
This would be
harmless, except that they project these feelings onto others.
The
sequelae of this neurosis include irrational and dangerous
behaviors
such as passing "gun-control" laws and trashing the
Constitution.
**What is wrong with good, strong, sane gun control laws? Do
you
feel
that criminals, drunks, drug addicts and nutters should have
unfettered
access to firearms? Why do you feel that altering the US
Constitution
(which has been done many times in the past) to reflect common
sense,
logic and the progress of technology represents a "trashing of
the
Constitution"?
Trevor I'm not going down this raod with you.
**I'll allow you another opportunity to answer the questions. If
you
fail
to
do so, then we will all know, full well, that you are full of
shit.
Here
are
the questions:
* What is wrong with good, strong, sane gun control laws?
Nothing. Of course, what constitutes those laws needs to meet
Constitutional standards and general agreement.
**Indeed.
* Do you feel that criminals, drunks, drug addicts and nutters
should
have
unfettered access to firearms?
None of these groups - with a couple of possible exceptions - have
unfettered access to firearms now.
**Untrue. In many US jurisdictions, drug addicts, drunks, nutters
AND
criminals are able to purchase second hand guns with ease.
As I mentioned, it depends on the definitions of "criminal" and
"nutter".
**Those definitions are not difficult to quantify.
Good. Please provide your definitions.
I'll go one better:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/criminal
Okay, I'll assume "a person guilty or convicted of a crime". As
mentioned in an earlier message, ex-felons are generally barred from
firearm ownership, so there is no need for new laws in that case.
Your definition would include misdemeanor offenses, is that correct?
**Depends. Any violent offence should be enough to ensure that a person
is
never allowed to own a firearm. However, the problem with US firearms
laws
(as they exist in many jurisdictions), is that it is possible to sell a
second hand firearm to a criminal, without the seller first performing
a
background check.
Are you referring to sales between private parties?

**Yep.

For example, if I
owned any firearms, I could sell one to a friend or relative without
the background check, right?

**Depending on the jurisdiction, yes.


Interesting. Do you know how large (or small) of a problem it is when
someone sells a firearm to a friend or relative?

**The precise size is unknown, as criminals tend not to be truthful when
telling the authorities where they obtain firearms. For instance: If
criminals told police that they obtained their guns from, oh, say, gun
shows, then that would cause a huge crack-down on gun shows, thsu causing
the criminals' source of guns to dry up. However, we know that some
criminals do buy their guns from friends and relatives. We know this from
the Columbine Massacre. So, although the problem may not be large (though
it could well be huge), it has been significant in recent times.

More crucially, however, employing the same restrictions on second hand
gun sales, as applied to new gun sales, hurts no one, except criminals.

I disagree, several years ago I missed out on a really good deal because
the NICS was down and neither I nor the dealer were local to the area, nor
too each other and it would have been more expense and trouble than it was
worth to arrange a meeting at another time.
Click to expand...
**Please describe your injury/s in full. Take all the sapce you need. Do so
in this space:

-----



-----

Now, I will describe the injuries suffered by some people who WERE affected
by lax gun control laws in the US:

1. Rachel Scott, age 17, killed by shots to the head, torso, and leg on a
grassy area next to the West Entrance of the school.
2. Richard Castaldo, age 17, shot in the arm, chest, back and abdomen on the
same grassy area.
3. Daniel Rohrbough, age 15, killed by a shot to the chest on the West
Staircase.
4. Sean Graves, age 15, shot in the back, foot and abdomen on the West
Staircase.
5. Lance Kirklin, age 16, shot with wounds to the leg, neck and jaw on the
West Staircase.
6. Michael Johnson, age 15, escaped from the grassy knoll with wounds to his
face, arm and leg.
7. Mark Taylor, age 16, shot in the chest, arms and leg on the grassy knoll.
8. Anne-Marie Hochhalter, age 17, shot in the chest, arm, abdomen, back, and
left leg near the cafeteria's entrance.
9. Brian Anderson, age 16, injured near the West Entrance by flying glass.
10. Patti Nielson, age 35, hit in the shoulder by shrapnel near the West
Entrance.
11. Stephanie Munson, age 16, shot in the ankle inside the North Hallway.
12. Dave Sanders, age 47, died of blood loss after being shot in the neck
and back inside the South Hallway.
13. Evan Todd, age 15, sustained minor injuries from the splintering of a
desk he was hiding under.
14. Kyle Velasquez, age 16, killed by gunshot wounds to the head and back.
15. Patrick Ireland, age 17, shot in the arm, leg, head, and foot.
16. Daniel Steepleton, age, 17, shot in the thigh.
17. Makai Hall, 18, shot in the knee.
18. Steven Curnow, age 14, killed by a shot to the neck.
19. Kacey Ruegsegger, age 17, shot in the hand, arm and shoulder.
20. Cassie Bernall, age 17, killed by a shot to the head.
21. Isaiah Shoels, age 18, killed by a shot to the chest.
22. Matthew Kechter, age 16, killed by a shot to the chest.
23. Lisa Kreutz, age 18, shot in the shoulder, hand and arms and thigh.
24. Valeen Schnurr, age 18, injured with wounds to the chest, arms and
abdomen.
25. Mark Kintgen, age 17, shot in the head and shoulder.
26. Lauren Townsend, age 18, killed by multiple gunshot wounds to the head,
chest and lower body.
27. Nicole Nowlen, age 16, shot in the abdomen.
28. John Tomlin, age 16, killed by multiple shots to the head and neck.
29. Kelly Fleming, age 16, killed by a shot to the back.
30. Jeanna Park, age 18, shot in the knee, shoulder and foot.
31. Daniel Mauser, age 15, killed by a shot to the face.
32. Jennifer Doyle, age 17, shot in the hand, leg and shoulder.
33. Austin Eubanks, age 17, shot in the head and knee.
34. Corey DePooter, age 17, killed by shots to the chest and neck.

These deaths and injuries were the result of weak gun control laws, as they
pertain to the sale of guns in private situations. Suddenly, the loss of a
"good deal" pales into insignificance.


So please define this assertion of yours that "no one is hurt", because
it's BS. Nor have I seen ANY evidence to show that such background checks
in the 18 states that mandate them has done ANYTHING to control criminal
access to guns or reduced the number of criminals with guns.
Click to expand...
**Please describe the nature of your injuries. How do tjhose injuries relate
to the 34 listed above. Are those injuries more or less severe?

As such, it's my belief that you're talking through your ass and claiming
all sorts of fantasy results which can't been shown to exist anyplace it's
been implemented.
Click to expand...
**I just 34 inluries which can be DIRECTLY attributed to lax gun control
laws in the US.

So. before we require a lot of background checks, why don't you first show
us that they actually have a demonstrated, verifiable benefit.
Click to expand...
**I've just shown what happens when you have poor gun control laws. Here in
Australia, when the gun control laws were changed, there was a dramatic and
sustained fall in mass murders via the use of firearms. Coincidence?
Perhaps. Still, it's been nearly 13 years since those laws were enacted and
there have been no mass murders via firearms.

Oh, and tell me again why we shouldn't simply issue special ID to
prohibited individuals so that a background check consists simply of
looking at their government issued photo ID???
Click to expand...
**People change.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au
 
I will provide you with, yet another, opportunity to respond to my comments
and questions. Or will you, like many gun owners, scurry away and hide from
me?

I suspect the latter. You're a big, brave man when you have a gun, but you
are a coward when you have to answer the hard quesations. SOP.

"Gray Ghost" <grey_ghost471-newsgroups@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9C333361FA65Wereofftoseethewizrd@216.196.97.142...
"Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in
news:7aanffF1smtq5U1@mid.individual.net:


"Gray Ghost" <grey_ghost471-newsgroups@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9C32B2A694790Wereofftoseethewizrd@216.196.97.142...
"fritz" <fritz@address.com> wrote in
news:h1ora1$djm$00$1@news.t-online.com:


John - Melb <mcnamara_john@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:eaf35a3b-8ec1-45d4-a716-35ac3a1b2fe6@y10g2000prc.googlegroups.com..
.
I note Trevor failed to provide any evidence to support his assertion
that dealers are posing as private citizens to sell guns to criminals
at gun shows, without the necessary background checks, despite being
provided with evidence that this activity is illegal.

Clearly, Trevor has some evidence that this is going on.

I guess this shows exactly the sort of person Trevor is, he has
evidence of a crime being committed, but fails to report that criminal
activity to the relevant authorities, despite the threat this criminal
activity poses to public safety, because the continuance of this
criminal activity allows Trevor to ride his favourite political hobby-
horse on Usenet.

Gun-lover = one who has a truly pathetic personal disorder




Gun hater - a person who has a fear of inanimate objects and retarded
sexual and emotional maturity and a indicator of Hoplophobia.

**I know of no person who "hates" inanimate objects. Perhaps you'd care
to cite some verifiable examples. I won'
t hold my breath.


Clearly you fear them and fear leds to hate.
Click to expand...
**Projection. For the record: I have fired guns. I do not fear them.

Hoplophobia (n.): The irrational fear of weapons, correctly described by
Freud as "a sign of emotional and sexual immaturity".

**Repeating a lie, does not make it truth. Whilst I'm certain there are
some people who do fear weapons, I can't say I've ever met anyone who
does. OTOH, I know a goodly number of people who do fear a nutter who is
holding a gun at them. Perhaps you could cite some people who fear
weapons. I won't hold my breath.


Nope that's your forte. How;s your buddy that can stop his hjeart to take
a
shot?
Click to expand...
**Inability to respond rationally, duly noted. SOP. I accept that you know
no one who fears guns.

Hoplophobia, like
homophobia, is a displacement symptom; hoplophobes fear their own
"forbidden" feelings and urges to commit violence.

**Bollocks. This is projection, based on a flawed descriptor.

Constatnly projecting what others they don't know would do and the raging
threats by antis on this group would seem to prove you wrong. Again.
Click to expand...
**Nope. You cited the flawed descriptor and then went on to project your own
opinions, based on that flawed descriptor.

This would be
harmless, except that they project these feelings onto others. The
sequelae of this neurosis include irrational and dangerous behaviors
such as passing "gun-control" laws and trashing the Constitution.

**What is wrong with good, strong, sane gun control laws? Do you feel
that criminals, drunks, drug addicts and nutters should have unfettered
access to firearms? Why do you feel that altering the US Constitution
(which has been done many times in the past) to reflect common sense,
logic and the progress of technology represents a "trashing of the
Constitution"?

Trevor I'm not going down this raod with you.
Click to expand...
**I'll allow you another opportunity to answer the questions. If you fail to
do so, then we will all know, full well, that you are full of shit. Here are
the questions:

* What is wrong with good, strong, sane gun control laws?
* Do you feel that criminals, drunks, drug addicts and nutters should have
unfettered access to firearms?
* Why do you feel that altering the US Constitution (which has been done
many times in the past) to reflect common sense, logic and the progress of
technology represents a "trashing of the Constitution"?

Your "facts" and assumptions
are grossly flawed, your desire for government to dictate your life is
well
known and your inability to be truthful or back up your assertion is well
documented.
Click to expand...
**Projection, projection, projection. Try to cite some facts once in awhile,
rather than projecting your opinions.

I would sooner argue with Weasel
Click to expand...
**Just answer the questions, else risk being targetting as a fool. You're
(apparently) making a case for lax, incoherent, poorly policed gun control
laws. You need to answer the above questions, if you are to make a case for
such an experiment.

You're an idiot. Get used to it.
Click to expand...
**This, coming from one who cannot answer simple questions, is rich.

I look forward to seeing the answers to these questions.
Click to expand...
**Still waiting.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au
 
On Jun 30, 7:45 am, "Trevor Wilson" <tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au>
wrote:
I will provide you with, yet another, opportunity to respond to my comments
and questions. Or will you, like many gun owners, scurry away and hide from
me?
Click to expand...
<SNIP> Inane ranting lovingly removed

ROFLMAO

Excuse me Trevor, how many times have you, run away and failed to
answer questions put to you?

The question about pinfires above is but the most recent example.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Welcome to EDABoard.com

Sponsor

Back
Top